BX 

.IVg 



V*¥ w iW*wv ww * w vv w w\^ 






V^v w 



riii lii 



^v%*vv 









fir? 



vv ■ 



WMOT 



^mm^m 



wpm 



C/^uV 



v £^fe 



v ^WVvW ( 



*<*V 



vv/v^i 






vvvy 



vwy^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



w%w 






"v v wvj 



WWW* 



WW 



STATES OF AMERICA. 



MX* 



^VWVVy'i 



^IrwyiA/yyyiA/i 



""ywWr/V, 



i^w#iiwwii 



^V^V 



«:^w 












^VW^W^^MM^^V^ 



VW* 









*VwWWW*tf*9e'** v 









WcM 



y^vO^yw^^ 



WUU^taffltf 



WVgiiW 



w>&y 



*Wywmww vv ™ri 






vWwVv^ 



w g^*/ 



W'mw 






* vv ' »w 






^m4m0^0im 



pSv^Myw^^y^^^ 



(? vv V w w : w. 















jv,-:yvv/yww 



vyww 






?a^i^"-- ii «S^^^^* w ^ 






j A iUUU 



iJjJWrW 



uuyy 



CHRISTIANS, OR DISCIPLES. 



KSd 






THE PtEV. s. istola^std, 

Of the Kentucky Conference. 



/ 



V 



With an Introduction by the Rev. A. H. Bedford, D.D. 






Nashville, Tenn. : 

PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE METHODIST EPISCO- 
PAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 

1875. 



^ 





Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, 

By S. NOLAND, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, 



INTRODUCTION. 



The controversy between the orthodox denominations of 
Christians and the Church calling themselves Christians, or 
Disciples, has been more animated in Kentucky than in any 
other State in the Union. For half a century a war has been 
waged on the part of the " Disciples " against the "Sects," 
and carried on with a zeal worthy of the apostolic age of the 
Church. The advocates of this system — embodying some of 
the cardinal truths of Christianity, yet replete with errors 
and false notions on questions of highest moment — demanded 
that the several denominations of Christians should abandon 
usages long established and sanctioned by the teachings of 
the word of God, and give in their adherence to its dogmas. 
In too many instances sophistry, ridicule, and abuse were the 
weapons they employed to undermine the faith of those who 
dissented from their teachings. 

Through the press, the pulpit, and in the broad field of 
theological disputation, the advocates of "the new order of 
things" have been met and vanquished. In the several de- 
nominations of Christians men have appeared, in vindication 
of the great truths of the Bible, who have met the bitterest 
sarcasm with the "sure testimony of the word of God." 

The champions of the "Keformation," once bold and de- 
fiant, no longer occupy an aggressive attitude, but, routed and 



4 Introduction. 

defeated on so many battle-fields, are now satisfied to act on 
the defensive, and to be content if they can only maintain 
an existence. 

In this controversy the Methodist Church in Kentucky 
has borne a prominent part, and contributed not less, if not 
more, than any other Church toward arresting an evil which 
once threatened the life of true Christianity in that grand 
old Commonwealth. 

Among the several books and pamphlets issued from the 
press, we have seen nothing more timely than the work be- 
fore us. Mr. Noland treats the several phases of the contro- 
versy with marked ability, and, at the same time, with the 
temper of the Christian gentleman and minister. 

A copy of this excellent pamphlet should be placed on 
every center-table in the State. A. H. EEDFOKD. 

Nashville, Tenn., April 9, 1875. 



CHRISTIANS, OR DISCIPLES. 



A FEW years after the beginning of the present 
century a body of men, few in number, who 
were dissatisfied with the doctrines and usages of 
all Churches then existing, arose to rebuild and unite 
the Church of Christ. Their work was to be so 
complete a success that all human phraseology in 
the use of religious terms should be excluded, and 
every word supported by a " Thus saith the Lord." 
The men who appeared to inaugurate this great 
reformation held all shades and varieties of opinion 
and belief on theological questions, embracing some 
truth and much error. The Calvinist and the Ar- 
minian, the Trinitarian and the Unitarian, the So- 
cinian and the Arian, the Universalist and the 
Materialist, were all represented. Such heteroge- 
neous elements made it necessary to have a short 
creed, to prevent divisions among themselves; and, 
as one fundamental principle of this new sect was to 
make war on all Churches for having creeds of any 
kind, whether true or false, it was necessary that 
their basis of agreement should be very brief and 
simple. It must, also, be quite exclusive, and yet 
latitudinarian — exclusive, so as to mark well their 



6 Christians, or Disciples. 

peculiarities, and latitudinarian, so as to give a show 
of liberty of opinion not found in other Churches. 
The sect was not started to " spread scriptural holi- 
ness over the land," but to correct what they sup- 
posed to be existing errors and evils in doctrine and 
practice in other Churches, and to destroy sectarian- 
ism. In this view its foundation was laid in a few 
words: 1. There is no Christian baptism without 
immersion. 2. There is no pardon of past sins 
without baptism. 3. All other doctrines of Script- 
ure to be held as opinions, and not as articles of faith. 

I. In discussing the subject we proceed, first, to 
show the- evils of allowing all other doctrines be- 
sides immersion and its design to be held as opinions. 
We shall also, under this head, notice the practical 
workings of this loose system of Church-polity, by 
considering its captious spirit in selecting a name 
for the Church, its offer of union to other Churches, 
and its mode of receiving members. 

1. We offer proof that we have truly stated the 
toleration of opinion allowed as to all doctrines, ex- 
cept baptism and its design, by this Church. We 
know that the conclusion legitimately and logically 
follows the assumption that immersion alone is bap- 
tism, and that the remission of sins is not to be 
expected apart from immersion, and the farther as- 
sumption that the Bible without any articles of faith 
shall be every man's rule according to his own in- 
terpretation, and not subject to any ecclesiastical 
authority. But we prefer to show that these views, 
opposing all authority in holding doctrines and pre- 



Christians, or Disciples. 7 

ferring to call them opinions, are held by the new 
Church not from deductions made from their prem- 
ises, but by their own express declarations. 

In Mr. Campbell's "Christianity Restored " (pp. 
118, 119) he says: "The belief of one fact and sub- 
mission to one institution is all that is required of 
Heaven to admission into the Church. The one fact 
is expressed in a single proposition, that Jesus the 
Nazarene is the Messiah. The one institution is bap- 
tism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person is a 
disciple, in the fullest sense of the word, the mo- 
ment he has believed this one fact." Again, Mr. 
Campbell said, in the Campbell and Rice debate, 
held in Lexington, Kentucky, in the year 1843 : 
"We receive men of cell denominations under heaven, 
of all sects and parties, who will make the good con- 
fession on which Jesus Christ builded his Church." 
("Debate," p. 784.) The good confession here 
stated is the acknowledgment that Jesus is the 
Messiah. 

But opinions concerning the doctrines of the Bible, 
whether true or false, may be held in this Church. 
In the debate referred to, Mr. Campbell said of his 
own Church : " We have almost all sorts of doctrine 
preached by almost all sorts of men." (P. 775.) He 
said, in his "Christianity Restored" (pp. 122, 123), 
answering an inquirer who asked if he would re- 
ceive a Universalist into his Church: "N~o, not as a 
Universalist. If a man professing Universalist opin- 
ions should apply for admission we will receive him 
if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible 



8 Christians, oh Disciples. 

phrases in their plain reference to the future state 
of men and angels. We will not hearken to those 
questions which engender strife, nor discuss them 
at all. If any person say such is his private opinion, 
let him have it as his private opinion, but lay no 
stress upon it ; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it 
will die a natural death much sooner than if you 
attempt to kill it." The great majority of this 
Church believe that the TJniversalist theory is not 
only false, but dangerously false, yet it is allowed a 
place in the Church when held as an opinion. But 
the truth can have no higher place in this Church 
than an opinion, and one not held by authority. We 
quote Mr. Campbell again: "But, says one, will 
you receive a Unitarian ? No, nor a Trinitarian. 
How can this be ? Systems make Unitarians and 
Trinitarians ; renounce the system, and you renounce 
its creatures. But the creatures of other systems 
now exist, and some of them will come in your way ; 
how will you dispose of them? I answer, We will 
unmake them. Again, I am asked, How will you 
unmake them? I answer, By laying no emphasis 
upon their opinions." (" Christianity Restored," pp. 
122, 123.) Now, if Unitarianism be false, then Trin- 
itarianismis true ; and Mr. Campbell, we believe, was 
a Trinitarian. - Yet its being true does not clothe it 
with authority in this Church, but it is held only as 
an individual opinion, while Unitarianism, which is 
false, can also be held as an opinion. 

From the foregoing quotations it is proved: 1. 
That Quakers, Mormons, Shakers, Unitarians, Uni- 
versalists, Calvinists, and Arminians can enter and 



Christians, or Disciples. 9 

live in this Church if they will only hold their pecul- 
iarities as opinions, whether true or false, and make 
the good confession, and be immersed for the remis- 
sion of sins. While the debate named was progress- 
ing, prominent preachers then living in this Church, 
and we believe present at the debate, held the fol- 
lowing views : Aylett Raines stated in writing, five 
months after he was immersed, that he was a Uni- 
versalist. ("Mill. Har.," vol. i., p. 390.) The diffi- 
culty was settled by the agreement of the Church and 
Raines that his belief in Universaliaijism should be 
held as an opinion only. (" Mill. Har.," vol. i., p. 147 ; 
" C. and R. Debate," p. 818.) He also stated that the 
doctrine of total depravity was a libel on human 
nature. Dr. Fishback believed in the divinity of 
Christ, and in total depravity. B. W. Stone denied 
the divinity of Christ and total depravity. ( " C. and 
R. Debate," p. 843.) Dr. Thomas was a Materialist. 
("Debate," p. 793.) 2. It is proved that all that 
is required to be a member of the Church, or a 
Christian, is to believe one fact, that Jesus is the 
Messiah, and to do one act, be immersed. There 
is neither a question asked nor an examination 
made as to the state of the heart, whether remaining 
in sin or made clean, or the belief in any other 
doctrine of the Scriptures. 

2. Serious evils will arise from the toleration of 
opinions and the consequent w r ant of authority in 
doctrine as held by this Church. After an agree- 
ment is made that immersion alone is baptism, and 
the remission of sins takes place only in baptism, 

then other doctrines claim attention, and other ques- 
1* r 



10 Christians, or Disciples. 

tions arise that will be heard. Soaie will be true 
and some false. How can they be disposed of? 
Suppose the question to be, Will the wicked, dying 
in their sins, be punished after death? Mr. Raines 
answered, They will not, while nearly all of this 
new Church believe they will be punished. Mr. 
Raines's error is allowed to remain with him as 
an opinion, and he is continued in the Church as an 
able proclaimer of the gospel, while the truth, that 
men will be punished after death for sins committed 
in this life if they do not repent, is not held by au- 
thority in the Church as an article of faith, but only 
by certain persons, who may hold it as an opinion. 
Again, suppose the question to be, Are all men 
totally corrupt by nature ? B. W. Stone, A. Raines, 
and the preachers generally in this Church, answer, 
No. Dr. Fishback, a few others, and the Bible, 
answer, Yes. What is the consequence of division 
in this Church on this doctrine? Raines, Stone, 
and others, all hold their erroneous view as an 
opinion, and on that account may hold it with im- 
punity ; but the true doctrine as taught in the Bible, 
and held by Fishback and a few others, cannot be 
maintained as an article of religion. The word of 
the Lord asserts, without one sentence in it contra- 
dictor}^, that the carnal mind is enmity against God, 
that the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint; 
but these truths, important as they are in the whole 
scheme of redemption, can never rise above an 
opinion that may be held or rejected at the will and 
pleasure of each member and preacher. Again, 
suppose the question to be, Is our Saviour, Christ, 



Christians, or Disciples. 11 

divine in his nature, and equal to God the Father? 
Dr. Fishback and, possibly, others answer, Yes, while 
B. W. Stone, A. Raines, and many others, respond, 
No. This Church has no power to settle the dispute 
on any of these questions. They are all essential. 
See the importance of the question last named. If 
Jesus be truly divine, as the Father is divine, then 
no man can worship him in spirit and in truth who 
regards him as a created being. On the other hand, 
if Jesus is only the most exalted of created beings, 
every one is an idolater who worships him, regard- 
ing him as equal with God the Father. 

The rule as laid down by Mr. Campbell is that 
an opinion which is erroneous may be held by any 
person if he will not give it publication. Who may 
judge whether it be an error ? Suppose the opinion 
is true, such as the depravity of the heart, or the 
divine nature of Christ, and persons in this Church 
holding the opposite view shall object to giving pub- 
licity to these true opinions, alleging that they are 
false, and, under the rule prescribed, should contend 
that they must be held privately — where is there any 
power in this Church to authorize these true opinions 
to be preached or written? May not the true doc- 
trines of the Bible be suppressed by the same rule 
precisely as that by which Mr. Campbell suppresses 
Universalianism ? 

Is it not certainly true that none of the doctrines 
of the Bible are allowed to be held as opinions, or 
to be rejected by men, as they may not or will not 
believe them ? Can there be anv risrht to hold an 
error as an opinion, or withhold a truth because it 



12 Christians, or Disciples. 

is called an opinion ? If we are told the Bible, and 
not the creed, answers authoritatively all questions, 
we reply, This shifts the difficulty without removing 
it. What does the Bible teach concerning the ques- 
tion, be it what it may ? This is the inquiry. Does 
it teach that no one shall pray before baptism? 
Then, let it be the doctrine of the Church that all 
prayer before baptism is prohibited. Xo preacher 
of the new Church has yet been bold enough to take 
this stand, although in hundreds of discourses the 
duty to pray before baptism has been denied. Do 
the Scriptures teach that men should pray every- 
where? that they should pray without ceasing? 
that in the experience of the publican the short 
prayer offered by him, " God be merciful to me, a 
sinner," resulted in his justification? and that in the 
history of Saul of Tarsus, " Behold heprayeth," the 
prayer received Heaven's approval before he was 
baptized ? Then, let the Church say, with authority, 
that prayer to God, through Jesus Christ, is the 
dutv of all men, whether sinners or saints. 

II. The captious spirit of the Christians, or Dis- 
ciples, in giving a name to the Church, we now 
notice. 

The Christians, or Disciples, are remarkable as 
contending for positions which are the most disputed 
or the most frivolous. When launching out on an 
ocean of opinions, drawn from the Bible as they 
allege, many of them are found to be mere quib- 
bles — on Which, however, they make capital for their 
people. A favorite remark of Mr. Campbell was, 



Christians, or Disciples. 13 

" There are great little things, and little great 
things." Of this class of subjects the name by 
which Christians should be called, a matter not at 
all essential in itself, has been so often presented by 
them to their people that the various names by 
which other Churches are known seem to them sec- 
tarian and odious. Their own name has been a 
source of trouble, and sometimes of difference of 
opinion, among themselves. The Christian Church 
is the name most generally preferred. Sometimes 
they call themselves Disciples, occasionally Reform- 
ers, but never Campbellites — no term being more 
offensive to them than the latter, although their 
founder, A. Campbell, who was their leading man, 
and who was truly a man of letters and ability, is 
held by their entire Church in the highest esteem. 
We have chosen, therefore, to designate them Chris- 
tians, or Disciples, as being their name only, and not 
as implying airy superiority possessed by them over 
other Christians. We seek to be courteous to them, 
and while we shall not withhold the truth in demol- 
ishing their theory, we hope to do so in the spirit 
that becomes the gospel of Christ. 

There is, certainly, no command in the Bible that 
the Church shall have a certain name, and the va- 
riety of terms by which the people and Church are 
called shows that the name is not essential. They 
are called Church, Church of God, Church at Cor- 
inth, seven Churches of Asia, flock of Christ, chil- 
dren, household of faith, saints, disciples, and Chris- 
tians, and possibly by other names. The name 
"Christian," preferred by this new Church, is used 



14 Christians, or Disciples. 

only thrice in the New Testament. It was first em- 
ployed about ten years after the day of Pentecost: 
"And the disciples were called Christians first in 
Antioch." (Acts xi. 26.) Whether this was in de- 
rision by enemies, and confined to this one place, is 
unknown; but we may rationally conclude that it 
was not intended to be the only name of the Church, 
as it is employed but thrice, and then without any 
direction to others to continue its use. Lord's-day 
is used once in the New Testament, and this Church, 
for the sake of singularity, have substituted it for 
Sabbath, the latter being frequently found in the 
Scriptures. 

The followers of John the Baptist were called 
disciples — they were not called Baptists ; yet this 
is no reason that a Church preferring that name 
should not be called the Baptist Church. After the 
time the disciples were first called Christians nearly 
all the other names, stated above, were applied to 
them. How inconvenient, if all the Churches had 
the same name! It would be as much so as if the 
citizens of a town were all named alike, or the 
children of one family were called by the same 
name. When God gave his people, the Jews, a 
home and a Church, he divided them into twelve 
tribes, and gave each a name, and a place, and an 
inheritance. But this matter, small as it is, has been 
the theme of many a discourse in this Church, and 
the occasion of many an attack by the people, who 
claim to act and speak only by authority of the 
Lord, while they charge sectarianism on all Chris- 
tendom outside of their own ranks, because, for 



Christians, or Disciples. 15 

distinction, some are called Episcopalians, some 
Presbyterians, some Baptists, and some Methodists. 
Is not this straining at a gnat and swallowing a 
camel ? When the name of the Church is the theme 
of the preacher five times oftener than the work of 
the Holy Spirit in the heart, is it not making much 
of " great little things," and neglecting the weightier 
matters of the law? 

III. The offer of union made by the Christians, or 
Disciples, to other Churches is now to be consid- 
ered. This offer has been made from the com- 
mencement of the Church, and is presented by 
their preachers in every protracted-meeting, alleg- 
ing, as they do, that it is made in all fairness and 
liberality, and that it is declined by other Churches 
only through perverseness and denominational pride. 
Perhaps no one thing has given their people more 
complacent satisfaction, or gained them more con- 
verts. 

The union of all Churches is proposed in the fol- 
lowing manner: Assuming that all admit the desir- 
ableness of a vast Christian organization having 
one name, and having no written creed, the Bible 
being the only authority recognized, thej? propose 
to the Christian world that all unite with them on 
the Bible on the easy and reasonable terms, as they 
suggest, that Christian baptism is by immersion 
alone, and that the remission of sins is promised 
only in immersion. Then, to insure union, and for 
the sake of liberality, they propose that all other 
doctrines of the Bible shall not be regarded as arti- 



16 Christians, or Disciples. 

cles of faith, binding on the consciences and conduct 
of men, but as opinions, or as truths, to be learned 
from the Scriptures by the examination of each one 
for himself, subject to acceptance or rejection, as 
the investigation, when made, may suggest to each 
person. This offer of union we propose to examine. 

1. It is not desirable that all professing Christians 
should be organized and united in one Church. If 
this Church should be congregational in its polity, 
and without general jurisdiction, each Societj? form- 
ing rules for itself, then such universal Church 
would be inefficient. What could it do in the way 
of law or government? Might not a Church in 
New York have one rule for the qualification of 
ministers, and a Church in New Orleans another? 
and so concerning any other question there might 
arise the same divisions and differences of opinion 
and action; but if the Church should possess gen- 
eral jurisdiction uniting the whole, how could this 
be without legislation and ecclesiastical power, mak- 
ing it necessary to have laws and by-laws, rules, 
articles of faith, and all the essential qualities of a 
written and authoritative creed? 

What would be the political effect of such a 
Church ? Its vote could determine the fate of Pres- 
ident or Governor. Good men would live in it 
from a sense of duty, as there would be but one 
Church, and bad men would live in it for the 
"loaves and fishes," and for place, and power, and 
influence. When the Roman Catholics had the 
ascendency, so that there was but one Church, per- 
secution was then at its highest power, and Sacra- 



Christians, or Disciples. 17 

mentarianism made its most rigid exactions. To 
deny that the bread and wine in the sacrament of 
the Supper were the actual body and blood of Christ 
was to prepare for martyrdom. 

2. The offer of union is not sincere. The Chris- 
tian world would not be allow T ed to hold the doc- 
trines of the Bible as opinions according to each 
man's judgment and conscience by agreeing to the 
mode and design of baptism. Suppose all had 
agreed to the terms of union named, and had 
entered the organization in the best faith, and a 
sincere inquirer after truth, on reading the Bible, 
should find that from the days of Abraham to 
Christ children were allowed a place in the Church; 
that the Lord and his apostles had declared no 
repeal of this privilege ; that in a number of places 
named in the New Testament whole households 
had been baptized on the faith of parents; that 
Jesus had declared concerning infants, " Of such is 
the kingdom of heaven;" and that, by an almost 
unbroken chain of history from the apostolic age to 
the present time, it was certainly true that infants 
had been received into the Church by baptism ; and, 
from all these considerations, should determine that 
his children w T ere entitled to baptism and member- 
ship in the Church — would this liberal people, who 
make so free w T ith the Bible, allow his claim ? Never. 
One thing is certain: uniting with this Church, we 
leave our infant children in the world exposed to 
Satan until they reach adult age. Here, then, is 
one opinion that would not be tolerated. At this 
point we find a Church without a creed having 



18 Christians, or Disciples. 

three specific articles of faith— viz.: immersion the 
only baptism, remission of sins only in baptism, and 
baptism for adults alone. 

Again : suppose a Christian in this united Church, 
on reading the Scriptures, should find that before 
our Lord made his advent into the world our Heav- 
enly Father had uniformly set apart certain men to 
the priestly office; that when the Saviour appeared 
he chose certain men to be apostles and certain men 
to be preachers ; that the apostles had called preach- 
ers embassadors of Christ, and had asked, "How 
can they preach, except they be sent?" and had 
declared, solemnly, that Christ sent them to preach 
the gospel, and not to baptize; and, from all these 
facts, suppose this Christian should determine that 
none but those whom our Lord calls to preach 
should preach the gospel, and administer the sacra- 
ments — would he be allowed to act upon such-a con- 
viction of truth? He would not; but he would 
have forced on him any person who felt qualified, by 
education or natural gifts, to be a preacher to 
assume and exercise all the functions of the minis- 
try. Hence, another article of faith is added, mak- 
ing the fourth — viz. : any person who chooses, if he 
has made the good confession, and been immersed 
for the remission of sins, maj 7 preach the gospel of 
Christ, and administer the sacraments. 

Many other things are held and taught by this 
Church as persistently as if they were bound to 
them by the most authoritative confession of faith; 
still, on other subjects of the gravest importance 
this Church is divided — indeed, there are more 



Christians, or Disciples. 19 

divisions among them on essential doctrines than 
are found to exist on unimportant questions. For 
example: the Church is divided as to the depravity 
of man, the divinity of Christ, the time and efficacy 
of prayer, and the work of the Holj' Spirit in con- 
viction, conversion, and sanctification ; while it is 
closely united on the propositions, no creed, immer- 
sion the only baptism, remission of past sins in 
baptism alone, and an offer of union on the Bible 
to the other Churches, provided they are allowed to 
prescribe the terms. So we see that the offer of 
union as proposed is insincere and wholly imprac- 
ticable. 

3. The union named is illiberal and unreasonable. 
The Christian world is asked to unite as one Church, 
acknowledging that there is no baptism without 
immersion, and no pardon of sins without baptism. 
Now, in the whole range of theological disputation, 
no two questions could be presented involving more 
controversy than these, and before we close we will 
show that none have less proof to sustain them, 
and more proof to oppose them. We can see very 
plainly the illiberal and unreasonable nature of a 
proposition for union (which always implies liberal- 
ity and friendship) by asking other Churches to 
admit as true the very questions in dispute, when 
the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is on 
the other side. 

At the same time the offer is made we find them 
asking the other Churches to accept and hold as 
opinions, and not as articles of faith, many doctrines 
of the Bible which are of the greatest interest and 



20 Christians, or Disciples. 

value. Now, it is certainly true that each one of 
the doctrines taught, or supposed to be taught, in 
the Bible, that may be held as an opinion in this 
Church, is either true or false. If the doctrine be 
true, what right has any body of men, or any indi- 
vidual, to hold it as an opinion, to be acted upon, or 
not acted upon, as he chooses ? If it be false, what 
right has any Church, or any individual, to hold it 
as an opinion, influencing the believer of the false 
position every day of his life, while he occupies a 
place in the Church where he may constantly inject 
the poisonous error into the fold of God? In either 
view, w r hether the offer of union be considered as to 
the disputed questions which are to be admitted or 
the latitude of opinion that may be indulged, the 
terms proposed are illiberal and unreasonable. 

If it should be said, in reply to the foregoing 
arguments, that the Christians, or Disciples, have a 
line of doctrine, believed and taught with as much 
uniformity as any Church, we answer: With the 
majorit} 7 of the Church there is such a line of doc- 
trine, but it is held ivithout authority, except as each 
individual may choose to fall in with the main body, 
either in whole or in part; and the whole line is 
mixed and intermixed with error, producing much 
contention and many varieties of belief. 

Perhaps the following would be a brief and fair 
summary of the line of doctrines and opinions held 
verbally by this Church: 1. Immersion alone is bap- 
tism. 2. The remission of past sins takes place 
only in baptism. 3. Infants are not to be baptized. 
4. Man is not totally depraved, there being moral 



Christians, or Disciples. 21 

strength sufficient in himself to do the will of God. 
5. The Holy Spirit, in conversion and sanctification, 
operates on the mind and heart of man only through 
the Scriptures. 6. Prayer is not commanded to be 
made by any man before he is baptized; after bap- 
tism, prayer is offered only because it is a duty com- 
manded in the Bible, and we are not to expect any 
direct answer to our petitions, except as the Spirit 
of God influences us through the written word — 
this being the only means of receiving spiritual 
knowledge or aid. 7. We receive the Holy Spirit 
first in baptism, and then only in connection with 
the Scriptures. 8. There is no divine call from 
heaven to men in this age, or any other age since 
the days of the apostles, to preach the gospel. 9. 
The evidence to a man that he is a Christian is 
derived solely from his knowledge that he has 
obeyed Christ in baptism, and does not consist of 
inward consciousness received through the Spirit of 
God, bearing witness with his Spirit that he is born 
again. 10. There is no promise that any person 
who has died without having been immersed, at 
any time since the day of Pentecost, went to heaven. 
Here are ten articles of religion, held and main- 
tained verbally by this Church — enough, truly, to 
make the doctrinal part of a fair-sized Confession 
of Faith, or Discipline. 

IV. We proceed to consider the unsafe and un- 
scriptural mode of receiving members into this 
Church. 

Other Churches have received the severest cen- 



22 Christians, or Disciples. 

sures by the Christians, or Disciples, for encouraging 
prayer for penitents, and for directing penitents them- 
selves to pray before uniting with the Church and 
being baptized, introducing the subject in every 
protracted-meeting held by them, and often using 
strong terms of ridicule and contempt for altars of 
prayer, affirming all the time that for their formula 
of receiving members thev have a "Thus saith the 
Lord." 

For a moment we notice their objection to prayer 
for penitents. The authority for an altar of prayer 
will be seen instantly, that the duty is plain that all 
men should pray, having the promise of God to 
hear and answer the suppliant. Hear the Script- 
ures: "Ask, and ye shall receive," "Pray without 
ceasing," "I will that men pray everywhere," "And 
he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men 
ought always to pray, and not to faint." "God be 
merciful to me, a sinner" — this was in the outer court 
of the temple, and a broken-hearted penitent was 
the pleader; but we have a direct example: Paul 
described a scene in one of the Churches similar to 
many we have seen in those Churches where God is 
asked to help the unconverted by his Holy Spirit, 
through the Redeemer, but the likeness to which 
we have never seen in any Church where obedience 
is relied on as the strength of religious life. The 
passage is in 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25. It is in a meeting 
where there is much religious zeal and power dis- 
played, and where prayer, preaching, and the recital 
of Christian experience go together. When Paul 
preached he often told his experience. Hear him 



Christians, or Disciples. 23 

describe the effect on hard sinners: "But if all 
prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or 
one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged 
of all : and thus are the secrets of his heart made man- 
ifest; and so falling down on his face he will icorship 
God, and report that God is in you of a truth." 
Was there ever such a scene witnessed in the new 
Church? Here is a convicted sinner falling clown 
on his face in prayer before he is baptized, and be- 
fore he leaves the house he is so changed that he 
worships God. His experience of pardoned sins and 
a change of heart is so much like the Christians 
around him that he reports that God is in them. All 
this was after the day of Pentecost. After this 
brief defense of prayer for penitents, and of a place 
for prayer, we proceed to examine the reception of 
members by the Christians, or Disciples. 

The manner of receiving members into this 
Church is well known in those communities where 
they have a foothold. They profess to have a plain 
" Thus saith the Lord ' ' for the proceeding. Usually 
a discourse has been delivered, but this is not essen- 
tial to the performance. The theme is likely to be 
immersion as the mode of baptism, or the remission 
of sins only in baptism, or it may be a tirade against 
other Churches for their supposed sectarianism. It 
is not apt to be a sermon on the sinfulness of the 
heart, the nature and necessity of repentance, the 
duty and value of prayer, the efficacy of faith in 
Christ, or the witness of the Holy Spirit. Doubt- 
less, three-fourths of all persons who have ever 
joined this Church did so immediately after hearing 



24 Christians, or Disciples. 

such a discourse as we have named. They were 
taught that it was not their duty to pray until they 
were baptized; that they were not to expect the 
influences of the Holy Spirit until they were bap- 
tized, and then only through the written word; 
that they were not totally depraved; and that faith 
was no more than the belief of testimony. The 
temper of mind and state of heart with which the 
large majority enter this Church may be easily 
known from these facts. 

One question only is to be asked the candidate for 
admission. Mr. Campbell will give us the precise 
words of this question : " Do you believe that Jesus 
of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God?" ("C. 
and R. Debate," p. 811.) And then Mr. C. adds, as 
explanatory, and as showing that this is all the ex- 
amination to be made: "If any man cordially re- 
spond, Yes, we baptize him. We ask on that sub- 
ject no farther questions." Now r , observe : the candi- 
date may be a stranger, his character and history 
unknown, the state of his heart, whether changed 
or unchanged, is not asked or known, and his belief 
in Christ is only in the fact that he is the Messiah, 
and not that he then trusts him for spiritual life. Not 
one word is asked whether he has repented, although 
the theory held is that faith, repentance, and immer- 
sion all meet, and are alike essential to the remission 
of sins. We have never heard of any person, on 
applying for admission into this Church, being asked 
a question concerning his repentance. All are received 
on professing to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, 
and being immersed. Depravity is denied, and 



Christians, or Disciples. 25 

prayer and the Holy Spirit's influence are postponed 
to the time of baptism. All this being true, the 
person immersed evidently experiences no change of 
heart to that time. As to his belief that Christ is 
the Messiah, he doubtless had that much faith before 
he entered the house where he made the good con- 
fession. But we search for a " Thus saith the Lord " 
for this mode of receiving members. 

We do not know but one authority that can be 
relied on with any plausibility. It is the baptism of 
the eunuch by Philip. (Acts viii. 36, 37.) We give 
the history: "And the eunuch said, See, here is 
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And 
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, 
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This was a 
case peculiar in itself, there being no other like it 
in the New Testament. It is not stated as one of 
authority for the Church, either by precept or ex- 
ample; nor is it like the course pursued by the 
people calling themselves the Christian Church. 
With them, the preacher askes the candidate for ad- 
mission the question, Do }^ou believe that Jesus is 
the Messiah? and he answers in the affirmative ; 
but here the eunuch, who represents the sinner, 
asked Philip, the preacher, the question, as they 
w^ere about passing a certain water, "See, here is 
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" 
"Philip preached unto him Jesus." (Acts viii. 35.) 
He found the eunuch reading Isaiah, concerning the 
humiliation and work of Christ, and he made this 
prophecy his text. In it was a prediction concern- 
2 



26 Christians, or Disciples. 

ing Christ, "So shall he sprinkle many nations," 
and this naturally introduced the subject of baptism. 
Philip, the preacher, did not ask the eunuch a single 
question. He only answered the question pro- 
pounded to him by the eunuch. Surely here is no 
authority to preachers or Churches to ask the sinner, 
invariably, the question, Do you believe that Jesus 
of Nazareth is the Son of God? So this much- 
valued and much-vaunted right to receive members 
on this single question begins and ends with Philip 
and the eunuch. 

We find four examples in the New Testament of 
awakened sinners who asked searching questions as 
to their duty, but not one where any preacher asked 
the question prescribed by Mr. Campbell. The 
penitent Jews, at Pentecost, asked, " What shall we 
do?" Saul of Tarsus, on his way to Damascus, 
asked, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" 
The eunuch asked, "See, here is water; what doth 
hinder me to be baptized?" The Philippian jailer 
asked, and the only one who did ask this question, 
"What must I do to be saved f and as soon as the 
three last words were spoken, Paul and Silas 
answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts xvi. 30, 
31.) Did any preacher of this new Church ever 
give this answer to the same question? Never; it 
would destroy the whole theory of pardon as taught 
by them. 

With what reason, we ask, can the Christians, or 
Disciples, claim direct and positive authority for re- 
ceiving members by asking the question named, and 



Christians, or Disciples. 27 



making a constant assault on all Christians for re- 
ceiving members in any other way ? We would not 
be understood as saying that there is any objection 
to the question asked as a test of the sinner's mind 
and heart, so far as it goes ; but the wrong consists 
in the assertion that in the gospel of Christ this is the 
appointed manner of receiving members, and that 
all other modes are unscriptural and sectarian, and, 
also, in the fact that the examination of character 
is so defective that a person joining this Church 
may not have prayed during his past life, nor re- 
pented, nor experienced a change of heart, nor have 
any other faith than to believe that Jesus is the 
Messiah, without any love of his heart toward him 
as his Redeemer. 

It would seem to be a self-evident proposition that 
the true mode of receiving members into any 
Church, whether by one or twenty questions, would 
be to remove all the difficulties in the way of 
the person asking membership. The minister, or 
Church, should ascertain whether he understood 
the moral turpitude of his own heart; the glorious 
nature of Christ his Lord — his power and will- 
ingness to save him; the value of faith in Christ; 
and the change in his own soul from a relish for sin 
to a love of God and holiness. No single question 
will complete this examination, and one question 
will not suit all persons. Some, from careful relig- 
ious training, stand all the time near the kingdom 
of heaven, and, like the eunuch, would be con- 
verted under a single sermon, and in an hour's time 
go on their way rejoicing; others require the thun- 



28 Christians, or Disciples. 

ders of Sinai to arouse them, and then " line upon 
line," and a long and careful probation as babes in 
Christ. 

We have now seen the evil effects of unrestrained 
liberty in allowing so many doctrines of the Bible 
to be held as individual opinions, and not as articles 
of faith, by authority of the Church ; also, we have 
shojvn the tenacity with which this Church clings 
to minor and unimportant points, where they may 
choose to prefer them, and how readily they deny, 
or hold in small esteem, many of the essential 
truths taught in the Scriptures. In their nomen- 
clature the Sabbath-day, named many times in the 
New Testament, must be called Lord's-day, which 
is named only once, as this will give them peculiar- 
ity and consequence. Their Church must be called 
the Christian Church — the name Christian being 
applied to believers but thrice in the New Testa- 
ment, and one of these times, probably, in derision. 
In receiving members into the Church, only one 
question is asked, and that is a question which even 
the devils would answer in the affirmative, as they 
believe and tremble. For this question the New 
Testament furnishes neither precept nor example; 
yet all Churches not conforming to this mode 
receive the severest censures by the new Church. 
An offer of union is made by them to the Christian 
world on the Bible as the basis, but, when we exam- 
ine for a moment the terms proposed, we find that 
the doctrines that other Churches are required to 
admit are those which are the most disputed, and 
the doctrines which may be held as opinions are 



Christians, or Disciples. 29 

those which are the very life of truth and god- 
liness. 

Fairly considered, we believe we have stated the 
general views of this Church. It is worthy of 
notice that there is not a single proposition held by 
them which is sustained either by the Scriptures or 
by the learned and good men who have lived in the 
centuries since our Lord ascended on high. Begin- 
ning with man, sinful and unregenerate, he is 
placed by them in such strength of his own that 
the sacrifice of the blood of Christ is unnecessary 
to save him, as he' has all power to believe and obey 
the divine law T without assistance from the Lord. 
The sinner is to read the inspired word of God as 
he reads any other book, and when he finds it to be 
true, through the strength of his own understand- 
ing, he is immersed for the remission of sins, and 
thus becomes, as he supposes, a Christian. 

Controversy has arisen from the claims asserted 
by this Church. Its voice has been raised against 
the Christian world. We do not regard the true 
cause of this hostility as proceeding from any thing 
peculiar in the people who hold the sentiments 
named, but it is owing entirely to the erroneous doc- 
trines on which they build — viz. : immersion alone is 
baptism, and the remission of past sins takes place 
only in baptism — and the latitude given to opinions 
of men to avoid the necessity of having a written 
creed containing articles of religious belief. 

Such pretensions have excited opposition on every 
side ; for while the Baptists will universally agree to 
the first proposition, that immersion alone is baptism, 



30 Christians, or Disciples. 

they will deny the second, that the remission of sins 
takes place only in baptism, and will never agree to 
a system so loose that many of the doctrines of the 
Bible which are of the first importance to the salva- 
tion of men may be regarded or disregarded, and 
cannot be held as authority binding on all, but are 
only received as opinions and conclusions of each 
man reading the Scriptures, and deciding as his 
own mind dictates. Then, again, the whole Pedo- 
baptist world will discard the two doctrines pre- 
sented as the foundation of this Church, with all 
the opinions and conclusions drawn from them ; so 
that, evidently, there can be no peace with a Church 
resting entirely upon error. Hence it is that war 
is proclaimed against all Churches by every preacher 
in this Church, and in every protracted - meeting 
held by them the usual themes of the discourses 
delivered will be the sectarianism of other Churches; 
the sinfulness of having creeds; the pretentious 
claims of ministers in other Churches ; the folly of 
expecting spiritual influence or offering prayers 
before baptism; the partial goodness of human 
nature; and the power to obey God without farther 
assistance than is found in reading the Scriptures, 
and doing as they direct. 

V. "We come, now, to examine the main positions 
of this Church, and to show their weakness and 
error. The first is: Immersion alone is Christian 
baptism. 

Immersion as the only Christian baptism is a 
proposition having the least proof to support it of 



Christians, or Disciples. 31 

any disputed question in theology, considering the 
amount of controversy which it has occasioned. 
Its adherents have discussed it thousands of times, 
avowing it to be as evidently true and plain as a 
demonstration in mathematics, while we do not 
hesitate to assert that if a thorough scholar were to 
read the New Testament for the first time, not 
knowing that such a question had been agitated, 
and should then be asked how baptisms were admin- 
istered, he would never think of answering, By im- 
mersion. To give immersion as the only baptism a 
reasonable plausibility, it must be made to occupy 
a prominent place in the Church — such as the test of 
qualification for the Lord's Supper, or the connect- 
ing link with faith and repentance to secure the 
remission of sins — and then be preached in the 
Churches believing it on innumerable occasions, 
and written in many books, ever keeping promi- 
nently before the mind the few scriptures which 
seem to favor this mode. If there should be onlv a 
quotation, without comment, of the scriptures prov- 
ing that baptism was administered without immer- 
sion, it would break the force of every sermon 
preached to prove immersion the only mode. 

Our treatment of this subject is intended to be a 
plain "presentation of the truth for plain people, so 
that the unlearned may understand it, and the 
learned shall not be able to gainsay the conclusion. 
We choose this course not because immersion is 
helped by investigations made by the learned in the 
original languages in which the Scriptures were 
written, or through the aid of lexicons, translations, 



32 Christians, or Disciples. 

or the classics, but simply because the plain, com- 
mon-sense view of the subject, studied in the light 
of the Scriptures, which are received by all denom- 
inations, and with an English lexicon to aid us, will 
be sufficient to prove that Christian baptism is not 
by immersion alone; and we trust the reader will 
agree with us that, as great and good men have 
occupied the different sides of this controversy, it 
becomes us to enter upon the examination without 
prejudging the decision either way, but regarding 
the whole subject as deserving the most thoughtful 
and prayerful study. 

1. It is not probable, considering the number and 
variety of duties specified in the New Testament, 
that there should be but one having a prescribed 
mode — immersionists will not contend that there is 
a particular mode for any thing but baptism. Now, 
when we remember how many duties of a public 
and private nature are enjoined on Christians in the 
New Testament, and find that all of them are tested 
by the spirit with which they are done, and not by 
the manner of doing them, we are surprised that bap- 
tism should be made the exception by requiring a 
specific mode of administering it; and, where there 
is an honest difference of opinion on the question 
whether it is or is not appointed to be by immer- 
sion, this thought — that it is the only mode supposed 
to be found in the New Testament — raises a strong 
presumption against the theory advocated. 

The Lord left in the Church two sacraments — 
the Supper, ordained before he was crucified, and 
Baptism, authoritatively given in the commission 



Christians, or Disciples. 33 

after his death ; yet, singularly enough, Baptists of 
every class, whether holding baptism as a test of 
qualification for the communion or for the remis- 
sion of sins, seem to fail to perceive that Christ had 
the sacraments separated, both as to time and design, 
and that, if time is material, the Supper was first 
instituted, and, if any precedence be given, it should 
be to this sacrament as a test of qualification for 
baptism, and not to baptism as a test and qualifica- 
tion for the Supper. But with Pedobaptists such 
trouble will never arise; they know that neither 
baptism nor the Supper has a prescribed mode, and 
that each has a separate design. 

Again, to show the improbability that baptism is 
only by immersion, when no other duty has a pre- 
scribed mode, we remark, comparing this sacra- 
ment and the Supper, that our Lord used bread and 
wine in the Supper — of the quantity of each we are 
not informed. How comes it to pass that all immer- 
sionists, who can see all virtue in the quantity of 
water used in baptism, should agree that in admin- 
istering the Supper the least quantity of bread and 
wine is best, so that hundreds can be served from a 
small supply, having left at all times a portion of 
the consecrated elements? Why is it that when 
Christ and his disciples observed this feast in a re- 
clining position, all the Baptists have no conscience 
as to the mode, whether they sit, stand, or kneel ? 
Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount sitting— 
why do they allow their preachers to stand ? Prayers 
are valid when made kneeling, sitting, or standing; 
singing may be conducted in any meter; and so 
2* 



34 Christians, or Disciples 



every thing but baptism may be performed without 
reference to the mode. Does not this raise a pre- 
sumption, at least, that immersion is not essential 
to baptism ? 

2. No one, as far as we know, among immersion- 
ists has ever stated that our Heavenly Father has 
not made the mode of baptism as plain to the compre- 
hension of the readers of the Bible as it is possible 
for language to make it. Indeed, our better nature 
would instantly spurn the assertion that the Father 
of mercies, directing by positive law an ordinance 
to be observed, having but one mode and being of 
the very gravest spiritual significance, should leave 
involved in any doubt the certainty of that mode. 
Immersionists always contend for the plainness of 
their proof. To make the mode plain to the reader 
of the Bible, if baptism is by immersion alone, 
would be like all the Lord's teachings when he or- 
dained a mode. Does he command an ark to be 
built? the character of the wood, the height and 
width, the size of doors and windows, and the num- 
ber and kinds of all animals and other creatures 
which are to enter the ark, are' directed with such 
exactness and circumstantiality that no dispute could 
arise on any of these points. Does God direct a 
tabernacle or a temple ? the description of every 
thing in the building — the vessels, the necessary ma- 
terial and preparation, and the men, including their 
dress and their duty, who are to serve in them — is 
so perfect that no artisan could measure with line, 
and rule, and square, and compass with greater 
precision. And so, with the same certainty, if im- 



Christians, or Disciples. 35 

mersion be the only baptism, will we find it in the 
Scriptures. By the words employed, by the prep- 
aration made, by the place selected, and by the per- 
formance described, will we find, invariably, that im- 
mersion alone is baptism. But if this certainty is 
always wanting, the strongest probability arises that 
the theory is wrong. 

Will any living man say that immersion, as the 
only mode of baptism, is so plainly taught in the 
New Testament that the great and good men, the 
ministers and scholars, living in the centuries past 
have found it w 7 ith the same unanimity and certainty 
that they have found repentance, or faith, or prayer? 
Surely they have not. Why is this so? It cannot 
be alleged that it was their ignorance, or their prej- 
udice, for we fail to find either in their holy waitings, 
left as a rich legacy to the Church. What volumes 
have they given to the world to open, explain, and 
simplify to our minds the Scriptures! What zeal, 
w 7 hat unction, what prayers, what consecration to 
God, what concern for souls, what laborious and 
useful lives, and what happy deaths! and yet how 
many thousands of such men have failed to find im- 
mersion in any of the proofs offered. Can it be 
plain, then, from the Scriptures that immersion alone 
is baptism? If true, it is not plain; but our Lord 
would undoubtedly have made it plain if true. 
Therefore, the strongest probability exists that the 
doctrine asserted is an error. 

3. Another probability that immersion is not the 
only baptism is found in the fact that in the Script- 
ures commonly received and known as King James's 



36 Christians, or Disciples 



version the word "baptize" has never been trans- 
lated "immerse" In the year 1607, there being a 
number of versions of the Scriptures, some complete 
and some incomplete, none of which gave entire 
satisfaction, King James appointed fifty-four of the 
most learned and pious men in the kingdom to trans- 
late the Scriptures, forty-seven of whom entered 
upon the duty assigned them. These men were di- 
vided into six companies, and a separate portion of 
Scriptures was allotted to each. After working on 
the parts given them for about three years, they met 
together, and, in full consultation, each portion was 
read and examined by the whole body, until all the 
forty-seven persons came to an agreement on the 
entire Bible. In the year 1611 the Bible, as it now 
stands, w\is first published; and so satisfactorily has 
the work been received wherever the English tongue 
is spoken, that, after two and a half centuries and 
more have elapsed, it is regarded with undiminished 
confidence and favor. JSTow, if baptize, which ap- 
pears so often in the New Testament, meant im- 
merse, why was it not so translated? The onty 
answer is, Because it would not bear the translation. 
But if immersion is the only Christian baptism, it 
would bear that translation. The men who made 
our present version, as is well known, were inclined 
to favor immersion, but their reputation was dearer 
to them than their preferences. What years of con- 
troversy had been saved, if that translation could 
have been made ! And would it not have been 
made, if such had been the invariable meaning of 
the word? It would. But now such a translation 



Christians, or Disciples. 37 

will hardly be found, except as a strictly partisan 
work, and none of this kind will receive the public 
favor. 

Just here we add that a plain mind, desirous of 
the truth, may safely determine whether baptize and 
immerse mean the same thing, by consulting Web- 
ster's Dictionary, an English lexicon recognized and 
used in all our schools and colleges, and by all our 
learned men. Hear his definitions: "Baptize, to 
administer the sacrament of baptism to — to christen. 
Baptism, the application of water to a person as a 
sacrament or religious ceremony. Immerse, to put 
under water, or other fluid, to plunge, to dip." Now, 
cannot any person see that baptize signifies the ap- 
plication of water to the person baptized, and not an 
immersion; and that immerse signifies putting, plung- 
ing, or clipping any thing under water, and not to 
baptize. 

4. The few examples of baptism in the New Tes- 
tament which seem to favor immersion in the state- 
ment of the facts, and then only inferentially, is a 
convincing argument that it was not administered 
in that mode. 

From the commencement of our Lord's ministrv 
to the close of the writing of the New Testament 
was a period of about sixty-three years. During 
this time four Gospels, giving the life, doctrines, 
teaching, death, and resurrection of our Lord; The 
Acts of the Apostles, embracing the first thirty 
years of Church-history after the famous day of 
Pentecost; fourteen Epistles, doctrinal and practical, 
by Paul, the great preacher and writer ; two Epistles 



38 Christians, or Disciples. 

by Peter, who had opened his mission to the Jews 
on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles at the 
house of Cornelius ; one by Jude, one by James, and 
three by John the Apostle; and the book of Rev- 
elation, by the same author, comprise all the sacred 
and inspired books furnished to the world by au- 
thority of the Saviour of men, after the close of the 
Old Testament. Now, if immersion is the only bap- 
tism as taught in all these books, we shall tind it 
stated repeatedly, and, considering its importance, 
it will be made known with such plainness that even 
the children will see it is true. But when we come 
to read through the entire Book, we find but four 
occasions of administering baptism where immersion 
is in the least degree probable, and then it is only 
so by supposing other things occurred besides those 
which are named. In the proper place we will show 
how many suppositions have to be made in each of 
these examples before we reach the conclusion that 
there was an immersion. The four examples named 
are: John baptizing in Jordan, John baptizing in 
Enon, Philip baptizing the eunuch in a desert, and 
Lydia baptized with her household on a river-side. 
Literally and truly, all other examples of baptism 
named in the New Testament have no appearance 
of being by immersion, but just the opposite. This 
new Christian Church, that we are now examining, 
maintains that Christian baptism did not begin until 
the day of Pentecost. If this be true, the mode of 
baptism before Pentecost, under a prior dispensation, 
could not prove the mode under the Christian dis- 
pensation unless there were some words of Script- 



Christians, or Disciples. 39 



ure to show that the mode in each was the same. 
No such words are found. Strictly speaking, then, 
the Christians, or Disciples, are limited, so far as 
examples are the proof, to the eunuch baptized in a 
desert, with no certainty as to the quantity of water 
on hand, or the manner of using it, and to Lydia 
and her household baptized in sight of a river, with 
no certainty that either she or her household, or the 
preacher, went down to the river. But we design 
liberality, and intend giving this Church the entire 
New Testament from which to prove one immersion, 
if possible. 

5. The statements found in the New Testament 
of the act of baptism, without considering any thing 
preceding or succeeding them, would doubtless at 
some one time describe immersion, if that were the 
only mode. It would be wholly unaccountable that, 
in the fourteen examples of water baptism named 
in the New Testament (that being the number, and 
no more), if immersion were commanded, making 
the mode as essential as the element water, it should 
not be stated. We know that the Scriptures are 
very frequently precise in the description of things, 
showing us how they were done when the manner 
of doing them was not essential. Two thieves were 
crucified with Jesus, and we are told one was placed 
on his right hand and the other on his left, and yet 
this description was not material to the narrative. 
When Stephen was stoned to death, "the witnesses 
laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose 
name was Saul" — but this was barely descriptive. 
Our Lord preached the Sermon on the Mount sitting, 



40 Christians, or Disciples. 

and, while we have this minute information, it was 
evidently not essential to the inimitable discourse 
delivered. We could quote hundreds of such in- 
stances of description. Now, the question is this: 
Will an inspired Book, given so much to detail and 
perspicuity in the statement of facts as they occurred 
— many of which are plainly not material — and in 
which only one exclusive mode is prescribed, fail in 
every instance, w r hen stating the act, to state the 
mode ? 

We proceed to give an enumeration, in the words 
of Scripture, of every case of w r ater baptism named, 
showing the act alone as described, in which we aver 
there is not one example of immersion given. They 
are as follows: 1. John baptizing in Jordan — "And 
were baptized of him in Jordan" (Matt. iii. 6); "And 
were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan" 
(Mark i. 5). 2. Jesus baptized by John — "And Je- 
sus, when he teas baptized, went up straightway out 
of the water" (Matt. iii. 16). 3. John in Enon — 
"And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Sa- 
lim, because there was much water there; and they 
came, and were baptized" (John iii. 23). 4. Jesus 
baptizing in Judea — "There he tarried with them, 
and baptized" (John iii. 22). 5. Day of Pentecost 
— "Then they that gladly received his word were 
baptized " (Acts ii. 41). 6. City of Samaria — " They 
were baptized, both men and women" (Acts viii. 12). 
7. Simon — "And when he was baptized" (Acts viii. 
13). 8. The eunuch — "And he baptized him" (Acts 
viii. 38). 9. Saul — "And arose, and was baptized" 
(Acts ix. 18). 10. Cornelius — "And he commanded 



Christians, or Disciples. 41 

them to be baptized" (Acts x. 48). 11. Lydia — "And 
when she was baptized, and her household " (Acts 
xvi. 15). 12. The jailer — "And was baptized, he 
and all his, straightway" (Acts xvi. 33). 13. The 
twelve at Ephesus — " They were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus " (Acts xix. 5). 14. Paul baptizing 
— "I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gams" 
(1 Cor. i. 14); "And I baptized also the household 
of Stephanas: besides I know not whether I baptized 
any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the gospel " (1 Cor. i. 16, 17). 

Now, we ask every candid man if there be an in- 
stance of immersion stated in all these examples. If 
he replies, They were immersed, because some of the 
baptisms were in Jordan, a river, and in Enon, near 
Salim — because there was much water there — we an- 
swer that while we admit the persons baptized in 
Jordan could have been immersed, we also know 
that because the baptism was in a river it was not 
necessarily by immersion. Every living man knows 
that a baptism in a river could be by immersion, 
sprinkling, or pouring. The place does not prove 
the mode. All that it can prove is, it might have 
been by immersion, and it is as true that it might 
not have been by immersion ; so that at last we are 
compelled to look at the act to determine how it was 
performed. But here are only two examples in four- 
teen that seem to favor immersion. In the other 
twelve there is no proof, from the description of the 
act as done, that there was any immersion. It is clear 
that exclusive immersionists, relying on this mode 
as positive law, are bound to make proof of the law. 



42 Christians, or Disciples. 

Have they done so in this description ? They have 
not succeeded, if there were no other examples 
furnished than John's baptisms in Jordan and in 
Enon. 

We shall now examine this subject by the exam- 
ples furnished in the New Testament, in the order 
following: 1. John's baptisms. 2. Our Lord's treat- 
ment of baptism. 3. The Epistles of Paul and Pe- 
ter, so far as they name baptism. 4. The Acts of the 
Apostles, giving the history of the Church for thirty 

years, 

«/ 

I. John's Baptisms. — Did John the Baptist ad- 
minister baptism only by immersion ? or, rather, Did 
he at any time immerse ? 

1. In the providence of God, John gave the best 
description of his manner of baptizing that we shall 
ever find. He said: "I indeed baptize you with 
water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me 
is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear : he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and 
with fire." (Matt. iii. 11.) In this scripture John 
speaks of his baptism with ivater and his Lord's bap- 
tism with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, in the same 
words; and as water baptism is always the type, 
sign, and seal of spiritual baptism, the description 
will naturally be alike in both baptisms. John's 
baptism was with water, as they had seen it per- 
formed ; Christ's baptism on the clay of Pentecost, 
the time referred to by John, would be with the 
Holy Ghost, and with fire. As was Christ's mode of 
spiritual baptism, so was John's of water baptism. 



Christians, or Disciples. 43 

Now, we ask, Did any one ever see or hear of an 
immersion with loater? An immersion is always in 
or under water. We proceed to show that the day 
of Pentecost was the time prophesied by John when 
the Lord's baptism referred to should take place. 
Before the day of Pentecost, Luke gives this testi- 
mony: "But wait for the promise of the Father, 
which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John 
truly baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts i. 
4, 5.) The very same words, with water and with the 
Holy Ghost, used by John three years before, are 
now repeated by the Saviour, and written by Luke. 
When the day of Pentecost was fully come, Peter, 
in his sermon, quoted from the Prophet Joel, who 
had predicted the spiritual baptism and its mode, as 
named by John the Baptist and his Lord, in the fol- 
lowing language : "But this is that which was spoken 
by the Prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the 
last days, saith God, I will pour out" — this was the 
mode — "of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons 
and your daughters shall prophesy, and your youug 
men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream 
dreams : and on my servants and on my hand-maid- 
ens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit." (Acts 
ii. 16-18.) In the first four verses of the chapter 
Peter had described minutely the spiritual baptism 
referred to by Joel, and John, and Jesus. Now, it 
is plainly true that if the Spirit's baptism adminis- 
tered by Christ was by pouring, and both baptisms 
as administered are described in the same words 
precisely — with loater, toith the Holy Ghost, and with 



44 Christians, or Disciples 



fire — then John's baptism was by pouring, and not 
by immersion. 

2. "We now notice the places and circumstances of 
John's baptisms. His was a dispensation in which 
baptism was administered from its commencement 
to its close. His preaching was in the wilderness of 
Judea, extending southward from Jericho and the 
fords of Jordan to the Dead Sea. It was so near 
the time of the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
after Christ's ascension, which had been a long time 
foretold, that it was proper that baptism, the type, 
should precede the Spirit's outpouring, which was 
the substance; and as John was the immediate har- 
binger and forerunner of Christ, such a ministry, at 
once calling men to repentance and displaying 
prominently the emblem of inward purity, which 
was baptism, it was eminently adapted to his work. 
From the foregoing observations, it will be plain 
that wherever we find John preaching, we shall find 
him baptizing. We fear that many immersionists 
have never thought of John the Baptist in any 
other manner than as being in Jordan baptizing, 
and in water of a certain depth; but we shall find 
that the voice of John began to "cry in the wilder- 
ness," and not on the banks of Jordan, and that the 
first cry was to call men to repentance, and baptize 
them, pointing them to Christ. Christ asked the 
multitudes, concerning John, " What went ye out into 
the wilderness to see" (Matt. xi. 7)? showing that 
multitudes attended his preaching in the wilderness 
of Judea before he went to the Jordan. 

But, to make this matter very plain, let us collate 



Christians, or Disciples. 45 

from the Scriptures the places where John baptized. 
We shall never understand how John baptized, 
whether by immersion or affusion, until we attach 
full credit to his own expressions on the subject, 
and read together all the places where he baptized, 
and the circumstances attending the baptisms. The 
immersionist is bound to the decision that all John's 
baptisms, and all other baptisms, were by immersion. 
We shall see. 

John baptized in five places. We notice them sep- 
arately : 

1. In all the country about Jordan — "And he 
came into all the country about Jordan, preaching 
the baptism of repentance for the remission of 
sins ; as it is written in the book of the words of 
Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying 
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, 
make his paths straight" (Luke iii. 3, 4). Even to 
this wilderness we have seen that John attracted the 
multitudes, and here in all the country he preached 
and baptized. We can affirm that this w T as not in 
Jordan. 

2. The next place was in Bethabara, beyond Jordan 
— "And they asked him and said unto him, Why 
baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor 
Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, 
saying, I baptize with water, but there standeth one 
among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who com- 
ing after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's 
latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things 
were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John 
teas baptizing" (Johnj. 25-28). Here was a confer- 



46 Christians, or Disciples. 

ence held between the Pharisees and John on the 
subject of his authority to preach and baptize. They 
found him doing both, not in Jordan, but beyond 
Jordan, in a place called Bethabara. Were these 
baptisms — beyond Jordan, in the country, and in 
Bethabara — by immersion, according to any proof 
found in the history? 

3. But, to make the place and mode of John's 
baptisms still plainer, we find that our Lord made 
his abode where John baptized. Speaking of Jesus, 
it is said, "And went away again beyond Jordan into 
the place where John at first baptized; and there he 
abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, 
John did no miracle: but all things that John spake 
of this man were true. And many believed on 
him there." (John x. 40-42.) Here we learn the 
additional fact that our Lord went "into the place" 
and abode for some time, where John at first bap- 
tized ; and many resorted to the place, and heard 
Jesus, and saw his miracles, and believed on him. 
Here are three places of John's baptisms — in the 
country about Jordan, in Bethabara beyond Jordan, 
and in a place where Jesus abode for some time. 
Were any of these baptisms by immersion? Not a 
word of proof exists that they were. The places and 
the circumstances forbid such a conclusion. If the 
expression "into the place where John at first bap- 
tized" had been used by saying "into the water," 
an immersionist would place every letter in italics. 
Now, from John's own description that he baptized 
with water, and that the Lord baptized with the 
Spirit, the latter being done by pouring, and certain- 



Christians, or Disciples. 47 

ly, therefore, the former in the same mode, and from 
such a minute account in the word of God of three 
prominent places where he baptized — viz. : the coun- 
try about Jordan, Bethabara, beyond Jordan, and the 
place beyond Jordan where Jesus abode — we are pre- 
pared to examine other descriptions of the places 
where he baptized, and the circumstances surround- 
ing them, affirming that to this point there is not a 
word favoring immersion. 

4. John baptizing in Jordan — "Then went out to 
him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in 
Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt. iii. 5, 6); 
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were 
opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God de- 
scending like a dove, and lighting upon him ; and, 
lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved 
Son, in w r hom I am well pleased" (Matt. iii. 16, 17). 

It will be admitted, we think, that if immersion 
is not proved in these verses it cannot be proved by 
any example given in the New Testament. Now 
the whole strength of proof consists in the fact, and 
nothing else, that John at this time baptized in 
Jordan, and that Jesus, being baptized in Jordan, 
came up out of the water. There is not a word to 
describe the mode of the baptism, except that John 
said this very baptism in Jordan was with water 
(Matt. iii. 11). We ask, seriously, if the object of 
the writer was to convey the idea that both Christ 
and the repenting sinners whom John baptized 
were immersed, could he and would he not do so with 



48 Christians, or Disciples. 

much more plainness than the mere statement that 
it was in a river, and that the Lord came up out of 
the river ? As to the statement concerning the Lord's 
coming up straightway out of the water, it is con- 
nected not with the preacher's preceding action of 
baptizing him as descriptive of the mode, but with 
what followed immediately — the heavens being 
opened, the Spirit descending like a dove, and the 
approving voice, This is my beloved Son. Then, 
immediately afterward, without any preparation or 
change of clothing, Jesus was led up of the Spirit 
into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and 
to be thus tempted forty days (Matt. iv. 1, 2); 
"And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the 
wilderness" (Mark i. 12). 

Concerning the repenting sinners who were bap- 
tized by John in Jordan, from Judea and Jerusalem, 
and the country around, there is not an expression 
indicating any act like immersion, nor any prepara- 
tion for an immersion. Now, all persons know that 
the narration is literally true — that the baptisms were 
in Jordan, whether the parties were in the water a 
few inches or a few feet in depth; and when we re- 
member that persons go into the water and down into 
the water, and come up out of the water, fifty times, at 
least, in the various purposes of life where it be- 
comes necessary, where no immersion is intended 
or understood, to one where an immersion is prac- 
ticed, and as an immersion on going into the water 
would be the exception and not the ride, we should 
always expect it to be explained, especially if it was 
so important as to constitute the only exclusive mode 



Christians, or Disciples. 49 

of the New Testament, and to be connected with 
the remission of sins and the salvation of the soul. 

Consider how we usually employ the expression 
in, or into, the water. The man rode his horse into 
the water to give him water to drink, and rode him 
straightwaj 7 out of the water. Was either horse or 
rider immersed? You answer, No, the object being 
only to water the horse. As essential to the water- 
ing it was not necessary to have gone down into the 
water; this might have been done at the edge of 
the water, or the water might have been carried to 
the horse. Now, we insist that if immersion log- 
ically follows going into a river to baptize, it would 
as logically follow riding a horse into the water to 
give him water to drink, unless there is something 
in the word baptize, or baptism, apart from the state- 
ment of its being in Jordan, to prove the mode to 
be immersion. Again: I went down into the river 
and swam across to the opposite shore, and went up 
straightway out of the water. Here there is no im- 
mersion — none expressed, none understood; but 
there is all the description given that we find con- 
cerning John baptizing in Jordan. Here is the 
river, the going down into it, swimming across it, 
and going up out of the water, and not a word said 
that there was no immersion. There may have been 
an immersion, but it is not proved. Now, if life de- 
pended on it, surely it would have been stated. 

5. John baptizing in JEnon — "And John also was 
baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was 
much water there: and they came, and were bap- 
tized" (John iii. 23). If it were not for the ex- 
3 



50 Christians, or Disciples. 

pression "much water" in this scripture, iramer- 
sionists would not see in it any proof; but that ex- 
pression has raised their hopes to the discovery, as 
they think, of % demonstration in favor of immer- 
sion. But here, as in all other places, there is no 
act describing immersion, the statement being " they 
came and were baptized." This is by the same 
John who baptized with water, and we do not be- 
lieve he ever changed the mode. 

The expression "much water," relied on here as 
the gist of the argument, is one of as uncertain 
meaning as to quantity as any one that could be em- 
ployed. If we stand on the banks of the Ohio 
River at a time when no rain has fallen for two 
months, we say. There is not much water in the 
river. If a careless servant, whom we direct to pour 
a tea-spoonful of water for the purpose of giving 
medicine, shall hand us a glassful, we exclaim, 
There is too much water in this glass. We have to 
know the design for which it is to be used before we 
can attach any clear idea to the expression " much 
water." If John had following him a crowd of 
self-righteous Jews who, except "they wash, eat not," 
as was their custom with their flocks and families, 
they would need a place like Enon, where there was 
much water, whether deep or shallow. This is the 
only place in the Scriptures where Enon is named, 
and in the original it means springs. In a country 
generally desert, these springs would be of great 
value to John's purposes of accommodation for a 
large crowd, while there was not one of them, in all 
probability, suitable for immersion. In the town 



Christians, or Disciples. 51 



where the writer of this pamphlet resides is a well 
containing much water — copious in the supply, and 
never failing — and in the summer-time its exhaust- 
less flow T blesses all the country for miles around; 
but it is only a small stream, and if it were on the 
surface of the ground, it would not answer the pur- 
pose for a single immersion. This is all that can 
be said of Enon and the "much water" named. 
Must not a cause, professing to have a positive and 
explicit law of the Lord for a prescribed mode, all 
essential in itself, be very weak that has to rely on 
such an expression as is here recorded to prove im- 
mersion the only mode of baptism? 

We have now seen all the strength of the argu- 
ment favoring immersion as found in John's bap- 
tisms. The New Testament has no other examples 
as strong. When we consider the number of people 
John baptized; the time he would be required to re- 
main in the water, if he immersed; the absence of 
proof of any preparation ; the foilure to state any 
one act of immersion; the words of John, "I bap- 
tize with water;" the certainty that his baptism was 
like the baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pente- 
cost, both being described alike in the same words, 
and the latter being by pouring; the places where 
John baptized, several of them being of such a char- 
acter as to exclude immersion; and the fact that, in 
giving the only two instances, in Jordan and in 
Enon, where an immersion could take place, there 
is not a word written to describe such a mode — we 
arrive safely at the conclusion that immersion was not 
the mode of baptism administered by John the Baptist. 



52 Christians, or Disciples. 

II. Our Lord's treatment of baptism is to be con- 
sidered next, to see if he enjoined immersion. 

Surely, if immersion alone is baptism, and on it 
hangs either the remission of sins or the scriptural 
test of communion at the Supper of the Lord, we 
will be taught the mode by the blessed Saviour. 
More than all others, he desired to give us all knowl- 
edge essential to our salvation. In a public ministry 
of threQ years, he sought to teach men all necessary 
religious truth, and his imperative command was, 
" Search the Scriptures." The subject of baptism 
was not ignored by him, as we know that "he made 
and baptized more disciples than John," the act of 
baptism being performed by his disciples, and not 
by himself. (John iv. 1.) Now, we state the stran- 
gest truth, if the hypothesis that immersion alone is 
baptism be well founded, that has ever been pre- 
sented, and it is one that will make our work on 
this division very brief. It is this: The Lord Jesus 
Christ, who was equal with the Father — seeing the 
end of all things from the beginning, knowing all 
the mistakes to which we are liable, and understand- 
ing the infinite value of immersion, if the Christians, 
or Disciples, are right in their views concerning it — 
did not in the course of his life, so far as four in- 
spired gospel-histories testify, ever utter one sen- 
tence stating or intimating that immersion was bap- 
tism. If this be true, then all candid men should say, 
Immersion is not the only baptism. We challenge, 
in love, all the immersionists of the world to find 
one sentence spoken by our Saviour favoring immer- 
sion. 



Christians, or Disciples. 53 

But, to be certain that we are correct, we will re- 
peat all that Jesus said about baptism : 

1. He approached John at the Jordan " to be bap- 
tized of him " (Matt. iii. 13). What he said to John 
we do not know r , " but John forbade him" (ver. 14). 
Then Jesus said, " Suffer it to be so now: for thus 
it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness' ' (ver. 15). 
This is all that he said at that time about baptism, 
and we know that here is no allusion to mode. 

2. Again, when the chief priests and elders asked 
Jesus by what authority he did his great works, he 
asked them this question: "The baptism of John, 
whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" (Matt. 
xxi. 25.) No one can affirm that this has reference 
to the mode. 

3. When James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 
asked of the Lord a certain favor, he asked them, 
"Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 
(Mark x. 38.) Here no mode of baptism is named. 

4. Christ's interview with Nicodemus : " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God" (John iii. 5). 
When we come to discuss the last question of bap- 
tism for the remission of sins, we wall examine this 
text again. The only point made here is that there 
is no allusion in it to immersion. 

5. Lastly, our Lord's commission : " Go ye, there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Sou, and of the 
Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii. 19). "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth 



54 Christians, or Disciples. 

not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 16). In neither 
of these statements of the great commission is 
there one word referring to immersion as the mode 
of baptism. 

We believe that the foregoing quotations contain 
all the recorded statements of our Lord concerning 
baptism. Will any immersionist say that immersion 
is named in either of these scriptures? Did not 
our Lord desire that we should understand that 
immersion alone is baptism, if such was his own 
appointment? Surely, the doctrine is not true, 
when we find it passed in silence by the Saviour of 
the world. 

III. Let us examine, next, the Epistles of Paul and 
Peter, so far as they name baptism. We go to the 
Epistles now because they are the great exponents 
of doctrine, written under the power of inspiration, 
when the Church was needing instruction to guard 
it from error, by those masters whom God appointed 
to preach and write his truth; and here we will cer 
tainly find that immersion alone is baptism, if such 
be true. 

We are asked, Why name Paul and Peter only, 
when John, James, and Jude all wrote divinely-in- 
spired portions of the Scripture record? We an- 
swer, Because neither of them has named the mode 
of baptism in any Epistle. This omission is truly 
surprising, in the event that immersion alone is 
baptism, and baptism is for the remission of sins; 
but as both are errors, there is nothing remarkable 
in the fact. 



Christians, or Disciples. 55 

In fourteen Epistles Paul named all kinds of bap- 
tism about nine times, and then only in six Epistles. 
Peter named the subject once. Their Epistles were 
written to establish the Churches in doctrine and 
practice — to teach all truth, and expose all falsehood. 
If immersion alone is baptism, these two holy men 
— Paul and Peter — knew it, the former having seen 
the Lord, and the latter having been with him 
during his ministry, and both having the very best 
opportunities to know the truth on this subject. 

1. Pauls treatment of baptism in fourteen Epistles. 
In all of them he names water baptism once, as 
having taken place in his own ministry. These are 
his words: "Now this I say, that every one of you 
saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of 
Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was 
Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the 
name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none 
of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say 
that I had baptized in my own name. And I bap- 
tized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I 
know not whether I baptized any other. "For Christ 
sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." 
(1 Cor. i. 12-17.) Here we have Paul's deliverance 
concerning baptisms at Corinth administered by 
himself. In it there is not one word as to the mode 
of the baptisms. There is one baptism of a house- 
hold. Without any creed he found four parties, so 
closely connected with baptism in their divisions 
that he thanked God he had baptized but a very 
few. Lastly, he declared he w T as sent to preach the 
gospel, and not to baptize. Now, the doctrines of 



66 Christians, or Disciples. 

depravity, justification by faith, and the witness of 
the Spirit Paul preached in every sermon and wrote 
in every book, often giving many pages at a time 
on each subject. If baptism, in its mode or design, 
had been of equal importance, he had doubtless 
given it equal consideration; but he so treats the 
subject as to name the administration of water bap- 
tism but once, and then without any reference to 
mode or design, as shown above. 

Here we notice together two expressions of Paul 
concerning baptism, which are necessary to the right 
understanding of this manner of treating the sub- 
ject: " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. iv. 
5.) How often is this expression concerning bap- 
tism used to denote one mode of baptism, and that 
immersion. This can only be true if water baptism 
is the only kind of baptism named by Paul and 
other writers of the New Testament; for if there 
are various kinds of baptism named, then it is certain 
that the baptism named in this text is the baptism of 
the Spirit in the heart, as it is in immediate connec- 
tion with one Lord, the Giver of spiritual baptism ; 
one faith, the means of obtaining access to one Lord; 
and one God and Father of all, who gives life to the 
believer. Hear Paul naming other baptisms besides 
water baptism: "Of the doctrine of baptisms." 
(Ileb. vi. 2.) Here the word baptisms is in the plural, 
showing various kinds. What are thev ? u Else 
what shall they do which are baptized for the 
dead?" (1 Cor. xv. 29.) " Baptized unto Moses " (1 
Cor. x. 2) ; common water baptism (1 Cor. i. 14) ; 
"baptized into death" (Rom. vi. 3). We are also 



Christians, or Disciples. 67 



informed of a baptism of repentance, Mark i. 4 ; bap- 
tism of suffering, Matt. xx. 22, 23. These are suf- 
ficient ; we see from them, very clearly, that neither 
Paul nor any of the sacred writers, when they name 
baptism, always meant water baptism in a certain 
mode, and with a certain design. Sometimes it is 
used literally, to signify water baptism; but it is often 
used figuratively, and more frequently to illustrate 
the spiritual life in the soul, by connection with 
Christ through faith — water baptism being always 
the sign of this great work. It is in this sense that 
Paul several times used baptism., employing such 
terms of description in inviting us to Christ that, 
by dropping the figure and construing his expres- 
sions to mean water baptism, have been made to 
favor the cause of immersion. With this explana- 
tion, we proceed to notice them. 

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were bap- 
tized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? 
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
been planted together in the likeness of his death, 
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" 
(Rom. vi. 3-5); "In whom also ye are circumcised 
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting 
off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum- 
cision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with him through the 
faith of the operation of God" (Col.ii. 11, 12); "For 
ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
3* 



58 Christians, or Disciples. 

Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ 11 (Gal. iii. 26, 27); 
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body" (1 Cor. xii. 13). 

On account of the word buried being twice used 
in the scriptures quoted from Paul, immersionists 
have concluded that here is proof that the term is 
employed to denote an immersionin water in baptism, 
as they suppose the act of baptism to be like a 
burial; but if they will read the history of burials 
in Paul's day, they will find that they were not 
made by digging into the earth a certain depth, 
then lowering the body, and then filling the space. 
A burial, literally, was putting away the body. 
Christ was buried in the side of a hewn rock, being 
laid in horizontallv, and not lowered down. The 
idea of a body lowered about the necessary depth 
of water for an immersion is not necessary to the 
proper understanding of an ancient burial. 

The texts referred to, and their contexts, will show 
us that in none of the quotations was Paul writing 
on baptism as his theme ; but he was explaining, all 
the time, our spiritual union with Christ through 
faith, and baptism is employed as the figure, type, 
sign, or seal of being ingrafted into Christ. He tells 
us that we are the children of God by faith in Christ 
Jesus; that in Jesus we receive the circumcision 
made without hands, meaning spiritual circumcis- 
ion, and employing circumcision as well as baptism 
in this spiritual illustration ; that our baptism is 
into Jesus Christ, not into the water; that our 
burial to sin is with Christ into death, and not by 



Christians, or Disciples. 59 

immersion ; that we are planted together — changing 
the figure again — in the likeness of his death, and 
not planted together in the water; and that we are 
baptized by one Spirit into one body, and not bap- 
tized in water. Here are circumcision and baptism, 
the two ordinances appointed of God as types and 
seals — the first in the former, the last in the latter 
dispensation ; here is a burial to sin, to show that 
we are dead to the world ; a planting together with 
Christ in the likeness of his death, to show that all 
our life and growth are in him ; here is a resurrec- 
tion from sin and death through Christ, to show 
that our new life is hid in him; and here is the fruit 
of faith in Christ, making us to have the innocence 
and joy of children. The mode of baptism was 
never once considered by Paul in these verses. If 
he had aimed to demonstrate immersion as the 
mode of baptism, he would have done so by stating it 
in direct terms, and not by the figurative use of the 
word buried, employed twice in the most obvious 
reference, from the whole subject, to the Christian's 
union and identity with Christ. 

Immersionists assert a positive law of Christ, 
plainly and authoritatively expressed, stating that 
immersion is the only Christian baptism. They 
undertake to prove this positive law by Paul. He 
wrote fourteen Epistles, and from these alone, if it 
exists, the proof can be derived. It is found in 
them that he uses the w T ord buried, in a figurative 
and spiritual application of it, twice in connection 
with baptism; but the baptism named, on examina- 
tion, is found to be a spiritual baptism into Christ, 



60 Christians, or Disciples. 

and not an immersion in water. Are we not all 
ready to reject a theory so weak that a positive law 
rests for its proof on a word figuratively employed, 
and that for a different purpose than the one ex- 
pressed by those who advocate the positive law? 

2. Peters statement concerning baptism: "Which 
sometime were disobedient, when once the long- 
suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight 
souls, were saved by water. The like figure where- 
unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the 
putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of 
a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.) We may say 
of this statement of Peter that its testimony as to 
the mode of baptism proves that the eight souls 
saved were those who were not immersed, the ante- 
diluvians who were not immersed all being drowned. 
So Paul said of the Israelites that they w T ere all bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 
x. 2). It is also said that the children of Israel, in 
crossing the sea at the time named walked on dry 
ground (Ex. xiv. 22) ; but Pharaoh and his host, 
who were all immersed following after them, were 
all drowned. So far, then, as these two transactions 
allude to mode, those saved in the ark — " the like 
figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us" — 
and the children of Israel baptized unto Moses as 
they crossed the sea on dry ground were not im- 
mersed, while all who were immersed were under 
the especial displeasure of Heaven, and were lost in 
the water. 



Christians, or Disciples. 61 



IV. The Acts of the Apostles shall receive our last 
notice. We will then have examined the New 
Testament entire, to ascertain the strength of proof 
to be found in it of a positive law of our Lord es- 
tablishing immersion as the only mode of Christian 
baptism. 

This book, written by Luke, as it is believed, em- 
braces a period of thirty years' history of the Church 
as it existed in the apostolic age, beginning a few 
days prior to the day of Pentecost. Its theme is 
the spread of the gospel over a large territory, the 
preachers who were the chief actors, the establish- 
ment of churches, the doctrines taught, and the 
errors repelled. In such condition of the Church, 
they were constantly occupying new places, where 
every thing would have to be repeated, the same 
doctrines often preached, and sacraments explained 
and administered. As baptism was the initiatory 
sacrament on entering the Church, and always had 
a spiritual significance as a type, or seal, in each 
Christian's religious state, it would be named fre- 
quently, in all probability ; and if it had an exclusive 
mode and a place so essential as to be necessary to 
the forgiveness of sins, it would doubtless be ex- 
plained on many occasions. 

On reading this book of Church-history we find 
baptism named only nine times as having been ad- 
ministered. Many an immersionist will name it 
more than nine times in one sermon. The occa- 
sions specified in The Acts of the Apostles are the 
following: 1. The day of Pentecost (Actsii. 38-41); 
2. Philip at Samaria (Acts viii. 12); 3. The eunuch 



62 Christians, or Disciples. 

(Acts viii. 38); 4. Saul (Acts ix. 18); 5. Cornelius 
and his house (Acts x. 48); 6. Lydia and her house- 
hold (Acts xvi. 15); 7. The jailer and his house 
(Acts xvi. 33); 8. The Corinthians under Paul's 
preaching (Acts xviii. 8) ; 9. The twelve at Ephesus 
(Acts xviv. 1-7). We are thus particular in enu- 
merating the places and occasions of baptism named 
in this inspired history that the reader may easily 
examine all of them in one view, with the question 
ever present to his own mind, Is there one baptism 
by immersion, or is there an example proving immer- 
sion with any reasonable certainty? We will now 
review the cases with the reader, that we may form 
a true conclusion. 

1. The eunuch. This is the example mainly relied 
on by immersionists to demonstrate their preferred 
mode; and as their proof becomes weak and in- 
frequent they become clamorous in declaring this 
example to be an immersion beyond dispute. Here 
we give the history : "And as they went on their 
way they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch 
said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be 
baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with 
all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and 
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
And he commanded the chariot to stand still ; and 
they went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when 
they were come up out of the water the Spirit of 
the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunnch saw 
him no more; and he w^ent on his way rejoicing." 
(Acts viii. 36-39.) 



Christians, or Disciples. 63 

We must understand Philip's mission and sermon 
to the eunuch before we can decide the mode of the 
eunuch's baptism. Philip acted under a special 
commission: "And the angel of the Lord spake 
unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south, 
unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto 
Gaza, which is desert 1 ' (Acts viii. 26). The eunuch 
is not named, but the desert country into which 
Philip was directed to go and the route to be taken 
are mentioned. While on the lookout for some one 
needing his ministry, he found the eunuch, who had 
been to Jerusalem as a devout worshiper, and while 
returning, and sitting in his chariot, was reading the 
Prophet Esaias. The place he was reading was a 
prediction concerning Christ. (Acts viii. 32, 33.) 
The eunuch was unable to tell whether the prophecy 
referred to the prophet or to some other person. 
" Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the 
same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus" 
(ver. 35). He had been invited by the eunuch into 
his chariot. His theme was Jesus. He began at the 
scripture named, but was not confined to it. In 
describing Christ's work in saving the Church, he 
found in Isaiah, immediately preceding the account 
of the Lord's humiliation, which the eunuch was 
reading, an expression that very naturally led him 
to speak of baptism: the expression was, "So shall 
he sprinkle many nations" (Isa. lii. 15). 

With what reverence and awe did the eunuch 
hear Philip tell the story of the life, death, and res- 
urrection of Christ! and when he considered that he 
was so near the city where the Lord was tried, and 



64 Christians, or Disciples. 

the place where he was crucified, and that so few 
years had elapsed since the event, his heart believed 
on Jesus with all its trust and love. To belong to 
the Church of Christ, and to receive membership un- 
der the preacher who had so unexpectedly preached 
Jesus to him, and to be baptized, were all sugges- 
tions of his mind as soon as the various subjects 
became plain. Riding along, they came to a certain 
water — the first they had probably seen in traveling 
many miles, and the last they might see during the 
day. The eunuch, fearing that Philip might pass 
it unnoticed, exclaimed, "See, here is water; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized ?" They were not in 
a church, and had made no preparation for baptism; 
but they had the love of the blessed Redeemer as 
the theme, and the prophecy, "So shall he sprinkle 
many nations," suggesting baptism and its mode. 
Commanding the chariot to stop, and both alighting 
from it, Philip proceeded to baptize the eunuch. 
How? This is the inquiry. The main fact to be 
observed in the description is that the very same 
things occurred to Philip and the eunuch, except the 
baptizing. Taking King James's version as the 
best in the world, and not regarding the prejudices 
of the men who made it, all, or nearly all, of whom 
favored immersion, as is seen by their frequent trans- 
lations of into where to would be proper, we pro- 
ceed to notice the account : First, both Philip and 
the eunuch went down into the water, neither having 
the advantage of distance or depth, and probably 
not going beyond the edge of a very inconsiderable 
stream. Second, they both together came up out 



Christians, or Disciples. 65 

of the water — both alike, and there being no differ- 
ence in any one particular. With the water Philip 
baptized the eunuch, and the latter went on his way 
rejoicing. He knew that Isaiah had said of Christ, 
"So shall he sprinkle many nations ;" and from 
the scriptures named Philip preached Christ, and 
explained to him the duty of baptism. Ezekiel had 
said in the same w T ay concerning Christ, but apply- 
ing it more literally, but not more truly, to water 
baptism : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you, and ye shall be clean' ' (Ezek. xxxvi. 25). 

Here is the proof relied on for immersion in The 
Acts of the Apostles. Excepting this one instance, 
there is not another which has the least probability, 
from the description given, that immersion was the 
mode. And will this instance support the assump- 
tion, in any fair mind, that by it a positive and plain 
law is established? Can it be said that immersion 
is proved by this case? The baptizer and the bap- 
tized went together into the water, and came to- 
gether out of the water — how many inches, or feet, 
we are not told; but the place was desert, and the 
water was named by the eunuch apparently to at- 
tract attention, and while they were together in the 
water Philip baptized him. How? Answer: By 
affusion, as predicted by both Isaiah and Ezekiel. 

2. If any of the other examples named can favor 
immersion, it will be the baptism of Lydia. She 
and her household were baptized on the Sabbath- 
day by a river-side (Acts xvi. 13-15). Paul was in 
the city of Philippi staying certain days, and on the 
Sabbath-day he went out of the city by a river-side, 



66 Christians, or Disciples. 

where prayer was wont to be made, and there he 
sat down and spoke unto the women which resorted 
thither. Now, be it carefully noted that there was 
not a person present, either the preacher or the 
women, who went on that day to the river, or the 
river-side, to baptize or to be baptized. They were 
not there as a company of immersionists, designedly 
to find water and a place suitable for immersion. 
The preachers went there to pray and to preach 
Christ. Under the influence of such prayers and 
preaching, the Lord opened Lydia's heart, and she 
attended to the things which were spoken by Paul. 
As the result of her receiving Christ on that day, 
she and her household were baptized. We say, 
without the fear of contradiction, that here the 
river-side is named as the place where prayer was 
wont to be made, and not as a place where a bap- 
tism was ever before administered. 

Except in the instances of the baptism of the 
eunuch and of Lydia and her household, there is 
not another baptism in The Acts of the Apostles 
which was administered outside of a house, and 
usually they were in a city; and there was never a 
single instance of preparation made for baptism in 
any house, church, city, desert, river -side, or other 
place. All such arrangements as baptisteries, and 
the like, are of modern date, started for conven- 
ience, and for the sake of decency, in the support of 
immersion. 

3. In Acts xix. 1-7 we have an account of the 
baptism of twelve persons. The place was the 
city of Ephesus. They were the disciples of 



Christians, or Disciples. 67 

John. What a strange question, in the ears of a 
modern Christian, or Disciple, was that which Paul 
asked them : " Have ye received the Holy Ghost 
since ve believed?" It would seem that on the 
subject of the Spirit's influence on the heart they 
had heard such preaching as the new Church fur- 
nishes to its audiences, for they said, "We have not 
so much as heard whether there be any Holy 
Ghost." Then Paul said, "Unto what then were ye 
baptized? " What significance is there in a baptism 
which is the sign and seal of regeneration, if it has 
no reference to the Holy Spirit that regenerates? 
Then, after proper instruction, Paul commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
There is not a word indicating that the mode was 
immersion. 

4. Paul was preaching in the city of Corinth, in 
the house of Justus, which joined hard to the syna- 
gogue (Acts xviii. 7). Here " Crispus, the chief 
ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with 
all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing 
believed, and were baptized" (ver. 8). Can any one 
believe that these baptisms in the city of Corinth, 
and in the house of Justus, or in the synagogue 
adjoining his house, were by immersion? We 
affirm, There is not a vestige of proof to sustain this 
assumption. 

5. "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and 
preached Christ unto them" (Acts viii. 5); "And 
there was great joy in that city" (ver. ,8); "They 
were baptized, both men and women " (ver. 12) ; 
"And when Simon was baptized, he continued with 



G8 Christians, or Disciples. 

Philip" (ver. 13). Here there is no expression 
favoring immersion. 

6. Peter was preaching in the house of Cornelius 
(Acts x. 24). Cornelius lived in Cesarea. An 
audience assembled and heard the preaching, but 
no one left the house. It was the first sermon to 
the Gentiles. All the hearers were brought under 
conviction by the Holy Spirit (ver. 44). Then, on 
their profession of faith, Peter said, "Can any man 
forbid water, that these should not be baptized, 
which have received the Holv Ghost as well as we? 
And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord " (verses 47, 48). Was there an 
immersion of that audience in the house of Corne- 
lius on that day? Never! " Can any man forbid 
water being brought to these people for the purpose 
of baptizing them?" was his meaning, and not, 
" Can any man forbid our leaving the house of Cor- 
nelius to find water to immerse the converts ?" 

7. The Jailer. — Paul and Silas were in Philippi, a 
chief city of Macedonia. They were in jail, and at 
the hour of midnight were praying and singing 
praises to God (Acts xvi. 25). The keeper of the 
prison was brought under conviction for his sins, 
and asked, "What must I do to be saved?" The 
answer came, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house " (verses 30, 
31). The jailer believed, "And the same hour of 
the night he was baptized, he and all his straight- 
way " (ver. 33). At midnight, in the prison, the 
jailer and his family — in the sight and hearing of all 
the prisoners, and in a city where every going in 



Christians, or Disciples. 69 

and out of a jail in the night would attract atten- 
tion — were baptized. These are the facts. Will 
any one conclude that the jailer and his fam- 
ily were immersed? If they do, it is the desire 
that it should be so, and not the proof that it was so, 
which causes the decision. 

8. Saul. — He was baptized in the city of Damas- 
cus, in the house of Judas, the house being situated 
on the street called Straight (Acts ix. 11 ; also, ver. 
18). He had been fasting and praying three days, 
and, being very weak, as soon as he was baptized 
he received meat and was strengthened (ver. 19). 
Ananias was the name of the preacher who bap- 
tized him. Hear the description of his baptism: 
"And arose, and was baptized" (ver. 18). He had 
strength sufficient to stand up in the house and be 
baptized. How? By affusion of water, and not 
by immersion. There is not the .shadow of proba- 
bility that immersion was the mode. 

9. The Day of Pentecost. — Here we have the first 
preaching of the gospel to the Jews after the cruci- 
fixion of Christ. Among them were the guilty 
men who had murdered Jesus. The whole case 
was peculiar, and required the clearest and strong- 
est statement that immersion was the only baptism, 
if such were true, for the persons addressed were 
strangers and enemies. They were not in a posi- 
tion to know any thing about Christian modes, and 
but little about its doctrines. 

There were about one hundred and twenty per- 
sons, including preachers and disciples, assembled 
together immediately preceding and on the day of 



70 Christians, or Disciples. 

Pentecost (Acts i. 15). Part of the number were 
women (ver. 14). They were abiding in an upper 
room, in a house, and in the city of Jerusalem, where 
they held a protracted prayer-meeting (verses 13, 
14). To distinguish the preachers, who baptized, 
from the disciples, both men and women, who did 
not baptize, the preachers are named (ver. 13). 
While in this condition, they chose an apostle, Mat- 
thias, to take the place of Judas, making exactly 
twelve apostles (ver. 26). Before this choice was 
made, Peter delivered a discourse to them, and part 
of it was concerning the baptism of John (ver. 22). 
John's baptism had been named in the same chap- 
ter as having been administered with water (ver. 5), 
and the day of Pentecost, just approaching, as the 
fulfillment of the prophecy by Joel of the Lord's 
spiritual baptism with the Holy Ghost, which Joel 
said should be by pouring (Acts ii. 17). 

On the day of Pentecost, which followed the pre- 
ceding events in a few days, and in the same city 
and place, three thousand persons were baptized (Acts 
ii. 41). Such a number baptized in one day was un- 
known in history, except the baptizing of the chil- 
dren of Israel, as they walked through the sea on 
dry ground. We are asked to believe that the twelve 
preachers named immersed on that day these three 
thousand souls. Let us study the question. 

"When the day of Pentecost was fully come" — 
in the morning of the day, and in the house where 
the one hundred and twenty were assembled — 
"there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing 
mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 



Christians, or Disciples. 71 

were sitting'' (Acts ii. 2). "We know, therefore, 
that the apostles and disciples were at that time 
not only in the city of Jerusalem, but also in a cer- 
tain house. Then the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
followed (verses 3, 4), and immediately the discov- 
ery was made that all the disciples, whether learned 
or unlearned, could speak in any language then 
known. Jerusalem was then represented by every 
nation under heaven (ver. 5). Such a display of 
gifts was noised abroad, and the people of the city 
and strangers, including all the nationalities, began 
to assemble to see and hear the disciples. They 
began to discuss among themselves the cause of 
such great power. Some said, " These men are full 
of new wine" (ver. 13). At this juncture, it being 
nine o'clock in the morning, Peter began his dis- 
course concerning Jesus Christ, and his claims to 
the Messiahship: his life, his crucifixion, and all 
the facts necessary to convince his audience, who 
were strangers and unbelievers, of the truth of his 
assertions. How long he preached we do not know. 
It was evident that the miracles, the zeal of the 
Christians, and the sermon, made an impression 
unequaled. Men began boldly to acknowledge their 
belief in the truths preached by Peter, and to in- 
quire, " Men and brethren, what shall we do" (Acts 
ii. 37)? Then the crowd began to join the Church. 
This would be done by experience, confession, ex- 
amination of character, or in some other way that 
would require time. 

Here we call attention again to the number who 
joined the Church and were baptized on that day. 



72 Christians, or Disciples. 

The number was three thousand. According to 
the shortest mode of receiving members that any of 
us have ever witnessed, how long time would be 
necessary for that number, on examination of char- 
acter, or in any other way, to be received? It 
w T ould certainly require several hours' time. In the 
county of Jessamine, and State of Kentucky, where 
the writer lives, there are about twenty-two hun- 
dred voters. It is a closely settled population, the 
county extending twenty miles from east to west, 
and fifteen miles from north to south. Now, it 
would be necessary to add eight hundred voters to 
the number in this county to make as many persons 
as joined the Church and were baptized on the day 
of Pentecost. In a single county, to take the vote 
in one day, where the clerk does no more than to 
write the name and record the vote, it is found nec- 
essary to have a number of voting-places. We are 
trying to make impressive the great number who 
joined the Church and were baptized on the day 
named, and the time necessary to be employed. 

After the sermon, and the reception of three 
thousand members, the question of baptism came 
next. If they were all to be immersed, would it 
not require considerable time to disperse, make 
preparation of suitable clothing, and meet again? 
Some lived close to the house where the preaching 
was heard, and some farther away. Or, will any 
one be bold enough to affirm that the three thou- 
sand persons — men, women, and children — went 
with the apostles to some suitable place, and were 
immersed, and left in their clothes saturated with 



Christians, or Disciples. 73 



water? Will any one assert that the crowd of ene- 
mies and strangers who joined the Church on the day 
of Pentecost, and were baptized, went to the place 
with the design of joining, and prepared to be 
immersed? It seems evident that the sermon, the 
receiving of three thousand members, and the prepa- 
ration for immersion, would take at least one entire 
day. We know no preparation is named, and the 
reason is, no immersion took place. But, if no 
preparation was named, did any of us ever know or 
hear of an immersion where there was no prepara- 
tion? In all that we have ever seen, there was 
preparation made for the immersion. 

Supposing, however, that at some reasonable hour 
of the day the three thousand were ready to leave 
the house where Peter preached, and go forth to be 
immersed — where would they go? Every pool, 
creek, or other place. where there was sufficient 
water, was in the possession of enemies ; but if they 
had all been in the hands of friends, where, we ask, 
in the city of Jerusalem, could places be found for 
the immersion of such a crowd ? There were two 
hundred and fifty persons to be baptized by each 
apostle, if they divided them equally. All . could 
not immerse in one place at the same time. We 
believe, if they had been immediately oh the bank 
of a river, to have found room and conveniences for 
so many immersions, that quite a distance would 
have to be traveled along the river; but they did 
not leave the house, so far as we are informed. We 
are bound, then, to conclude that no immersion 
took place. 
4 



74 Christians, or Disciples. 

We have given the whole history of the New 
Testament on the subject of baptism, to ascertain on 
what authority exclusive immersion rests. On no 
other authority than this: John the Baptist, part of 
the time, baptized in a river with water; and he also 
baptized with water in the country around Jordan, in 
Bethabara, and in a place where Jesus abode. He 
also baptized in Enon, a place of springs, because 
there was much water there. The eunuch and the 
preacher who baptized him both went down into 
the water, and came up out of the water ; Lydia 
and her household were baptized on a river-side. 
Paul said, "We are buried with Christ by baptism 
into death" — not into water. From all this it is 
asserted by immersionists that there is a positive 
law for immersion ; but in it all there is, truly, no 
proof to support the assumption. 

On the other side, we ascertain that John the 
Baptist always baptized with water; that it was 
likened to the baptism of. the Holy Spirit, which 
was by pouring ; that sprinkling was predicted by 
two prophets — Isaiah and Ezekiel — and that the 
eunuch was baptized under a sermon in which 
Isaiah must have been quoted, using the words, "So 
shall he sprinkle many nations ;" that our Lord, in 
all his teachings, never spoke one word favoring im- 
mersion ; that all the baptisms which took place in 
the first thirty years' history, excepting two in- 
stances — the eunuch and Lydia — were in cities and 
houses, there being no preparation made for baptism, 
and under circumstances where immersion could 
not take place. We leave the reader to decide 



Christians, or Disciples. 75 

whether the New Testament teaches that immersion 
is the only baptism, and- we pray the blessing of 
God in leading him to the truth. 

V. The doctrine that the remission of past sins 
takes place only in baptism shall now receive our 
consideration. 

No subject connected with the salvation of men 
has been presented in the Bible with more frequen- 
cy, or greater clearness, than the remission of sins. 
It is essential to the sinner's life, and whatever the 
agency may be through which a man "dead in 
trespasses and sins" may live and be holy, divine 
revelation will explain it with unmistakable clear- 
ness. The Christians, or Disciples, contend, erro- 
neously, as we will show beyond a doubt, that the 
sinner is pardoned only in the act of baptism. Hear 
Mr. Campbell, their greatest expounder of Script- 
ure: "I proceed to show that we have the most 
explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's- 
sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ 
is named upon us in immersion; that in and by the 
act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put 
under the water, at that very instant, our former 
or old sins are all washed away: provided, only, that 
we are true believers. I am bold to affirm that 
every one of them who, in the belief of what the 
apostle spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instant 
in which he was put under water, receive the for- 
giveness of his sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
If so. then who will not concur with me in saying 
that Christian immersion is the gospel in water?" 



76 Christians, or Disciples. 

(" Christian Baptism," pp. 416, 417.) After giving 
these paragraphs from Mr. Campbell, it is certain 
that we are not misleading the reader in stating the 
views of this Church. 

The Holy Scripture, and particularly the New 
Testament, explains Christ's law for the pardon of 
sins to be by faith in him, and that not a few times 
only, but hundreds of times; but it is well known 
that every error has some show of plausibility, by 
quotations of Scripture either detached from other 
parts or distorted in their meaning — so the error 
which we are now considering has in the New Tes- 
tament just four passages on which a hope may be 
hung that the remission of sins takes place only in 
baptism. We proceed to examine them. 

1. Our Saviour's interview with Nicodemus has 
an expression relied on to prove that remission of 
sins takes place only in baptism: "Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) 

Whether this refers to water baptism is by no 
means certain. It may be used only to make strong 
the impression on the mind of Nicodemus, through 
the figure of water employed, always emblematical 
of the Spirit's influence, to show the necessity and 
nature of the new birth. And this looks more 
probable when we remember that, in the entire in- 
terview between our Lord and Nicodemus, water is 
not named elsewhere. It is quite strange that when 
there is not a word preceding or following this verse 
on the subject of water baptism that our Lord, if he 
meant, as our opponents contend, that water bap- 



Christians, or Disciples. 77 



tism was as essential to salvation as the Holy Spirit, 
would allow Nicodemus to come and go with only 
a hint as to his duty — the duty not being pressed on 
him at the time. More than this, our opponents 
inform us that Christian baptism was not instituted 
until the day of Pentecost, nearly three years after 
this interview. How, then, could the baptism of 
Nicodemus prove the design of Christian baptism? 

But, supposing that our Lord meant water bap- 
tism, we remark that the subject is capable of an 
easy explanation, on the hypothesis that salvation is 
by faith in Christ. The only fair rule of interpre- 
tation of any single passage in a discourse on a 
disputed question is to compare the passage with 
the rest of the discourse. With this rule before us, 
we find that Jesus, in the same discourse, said, "He 
that believeth on him is not condemned." (John iii. 
18.) Now, if this be true, the believer is acquitted, 
or forgiven, the moment that he believes on Jesus ; 
for if he is not condemned, he must be pardoned, 
and hence he is forgiven when he believes and before 
he is baptized. Hence the construction of the pas- 
sage, that in the very instant a man is immersed he 
is born of water and his sins are forgiven, is an 
error. 

But let us notice our Lord's subject and his treat- 
ment of it while addressing the Jewish ruler. The 
subject was, "Except a man be born again, he can- 
not see the kingdom of God" (John iii. 3). He 
made clear and impressive the 'power by which the 
new birth is effected, being the Holy Spirit, and the 
means by which that power is secured, being faith 



78 Christians, or Disciples. 

in Christ. The whole subject of the new birth was 
mysterious to Nicodemus. To make it as plain as 
possible, the Lord, in the discourse, used three figures 
— two to show the influence of the Spirit, and one 
to show the saving nature of faith in Christ. To 
encourage Nicodemus to believe on the Lord, so that 
he might be born again through faith in Christ, was 
shown by this figure : "And as Moses lifted up the ser- 
pent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up : that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have eternal life " (John iii. 14, 15). 
Nicodemus, being a Jewish ruler, would remember 
in the Old Testament Scriptures the history of the 
Israelites bitten by fiery serpents in the wilderness 
on account of their disobedience to God, and their 
being healed by only looking on a brazen serpent 
erected by Moses, and typical of Christ. Nothing 
could be more convincing to suggest to him the 
nature and power of faith in Christ to save the soul. 
But here baptism for the remission of sins is not 
mentioned — faith in Christ is the cause assigned for 
the blessing of pardon. 

Having shown Nicodemus, by direct statement 
several times repeated in the discourse, and by the 
figure named, that faith was the only condition re- 
quired of him to secure eternal life, he also as con- 
clusively taught him that the Spirit of the Lord was 
the power which imparted the new life. In John 
iii. 8 Christ informed Nicodemus, "The wind blow- 
eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the 



Christians, or Disciples. 79 

Spirit." Here the figure is employed, and the use of 
it is explained. We are not left to any inference. 
Nothing is more certain or more mysterious than 
the wind. Feeling its power, we know not its 
source, only that it comes from God. So of the 
Spirit; it gives life to the dead, but no one perceives 
or understands the process. Then, for the same 
purpose, he uses the figure of the text, "Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God." On our globe, 
water is the cleansing element ; in baptism, it is the 
sign of purity and regeneration. These three illus- 
trations would throw light on the dark mind of the 
Jewish ruler on the subject of the new birth, teach- 
ing him that the power of life is in the Spirit of God 
— the agency through which we live is faith in 
Christ. 

2. The commission of our Lord: "He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 16). 

The construction placed on these words by the 
new Church is that the Saviour meant that salvation 
was connected with baptism the instant the baptism 
took place, and not at any other time. This is not 
his meaning. He did not say, " He that believeth and 
is baptized is saved," which is the interpretation Mr. 
Campbell gives it, as appears from the fact developed 
in the passages read from him, that the sinner is 
saved instantly in the very act of being baptized. 
Jesus said, " He shall be saved ;" Mr. C. said " He is 
saved." The Lord concluded, "He that believeth 
not shall be damned," and not that he is damned. 



80 Christians, or Disciples. 

Now, the following is the true explanation : The Lord 
appointed two sacraments — the Supper, by which 
to recognize and remember his broken body and shed 
blood, and baptism, placed at the door of the Church, 
and to be the emblem of regeneration. The com- 
mission could not be misleading to any one who 
would remember and believe that our Lord had said, 
"Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but 
have eternal life" (John iii. 15). He said again, 
"Thy faith hath saved thee " (Luke vii. 50). Many 
statements of our Saviour could be quoted, showing 
that he always taught that w T e are saved by faith in 
him, and not through any act of our own. 

3. The next passage relied on to prove that remis- 
sion of sins takes place only in baptism is a remark 
made by Peter on the day of Pentecost. He had 
before him a crowd of Jews who had publicly de- 
nied and crucified Jesus Christ, but who were now 
penitent. They asked him what the} 7 must do. 
Their case was peculiar. They were very guilty. 
Such an answer as Peter gave them neither he nor 
any other apostle ever gave to any other persons. 
What he desired was to have as public an acknowl- 
edgment of Christ as the denial and crucifixion had 
been public. He said to them, " Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost " (Acts ii. 38). The baptism 
was to be the public acknowledgment of Jesus be- 
fore the world. But the Christians, or Disciples, 
contend that, because the words u be baptized for the 
remission of sins" are used, the meaning is, In the 



Christians, or Disciples. 81 

very act of immersion, and instantly, and at no 
other time or place, before or after baptism, the re- 
mission of sins takes place. Now, this cannot be 
true, when it is clear that the word '"for" in the 
scripture may mean because of the remission of sins 
which has taken place, or in order to the remission 
of sins that will take place. But it will not answer 
the purpose of our opponents to make the word for 
refer to either "past or future time. It is present time, 
and the pardon of sins only in immersion, that they 
require to support their theory, and one so effectual 
that when a person rises from' the water he is as 
pure as an angel. (" Campbell and McCalla Debate," 
p. 137.) So the word "for," to suit the theory ad- 
vocated, must have a meaning as to time so definite 
that only the present moment is embraced. 

The courts of law apply the rule of construction 
to a will, or deed, or other written instrument, where 
some word or sentence is of doubtful meaning, that 
the w T hole document shall be examined in removing 
the doubt. Now, here is a statement of Peter which 
is understood by different persons in a different 
sense. One party contends that he teaches the doc- 
trine that in the very act of immersion the person 
baptized is pardoned, the immersion being as essen- 
tial to the pardon as faith in Christ is essential. The 
other side contends that the persons addressed had 
been enemies to Christ, having denied and murdered 
him ; that baptism is named because these penitent 
Jews, formerly unbelievers and murderers, are to be 
received into the Church, it being at the door of 

the Church, and the emblem of spiritual purification, 
4* 



82 Christians, or Disciples. 

and that the expression "for the remission of sins" 
does not necessarily mean that sins will be remitted 
only in baptism, as by its plain and obvious sense it 
may refer to past or future time. To make this 
view more certainly correct, we remark that Peter 
preached only Christ and faith in Christ, not naming 
baptism until the moment arrived when he was to 
receive the penitents into the Church. It is evident 
that their conviction for sin and faith in Christ were 
produced, under the sermon, without any reference 
to baptism. So the two parties stand in opposition 
of belief as to the meaning of the expression "for 
the remission of sins. ,, How may the question be 
decided? The most certain way to reach the truth 
is to examine the same preacher and writer, and as- 
certain what he said at other times. He lived to be 
the first preacher who offered the gospel to the 
Gentiles, a few years after the day of Pentecost, in 
the house of Cornelius; to preach many times in 
many places ; to be a faithful witness for the Lord, 
and to write two Epistles under divine inspiration. 
But, in all that he said and wrote after the day of 
Pentecost, he never made another such statement as 
the one made to the Jews, as he never had another 
audience similarly guilty, and to whom precisely 
similar instruction w T as proper. 

Let us see what he taught at other times con- 
cerning the remission of sins, that we may know 
whether baptism was connected with pardon. Two 
passages will suffice as containing the doctrine 
uniformly taught by him: "Receiving the end of 
your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet. 



Christians, or Disciples. 83 

i. 9); "To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name whosoever believeth in him shall 
receive remission of sins" (Acts x. 43). It is certain 
that, if either of these scriptures be true, remission 
of sins is by faith in Christ. If it is by faith in 
Christ, then baptism is not essential to the remis- 
sion of sins. The first text quoted above was writ- 
ten by Peter about nineteen years after the last- 
named text was spoken to Cornelius and his friends. 
The sermon to Cornelius and his friends was deliv- 
ered about eight years after the day of Pentecost. 
It is certainly true, therefore, that if Peter uni- 
formly taught, for twenty-seven years at least after 
the text in dispute was spoken, that remission of 
sins was by faith in Christ, he could not mean to teach 
on the day of Pentecost, as a truth to be believed 
bv men in all future time, that there is no remission 
of sins except in immersion. Therefore, we safely 
conclude that this famous text does not teach the 
doctrine of the pardon of sins in baptism alone, as 
maintained by the Christians, or Disciples. 

Before we leave this point, we wish to state a fact 
for careful consideration. Mr. Campbell expressed 
the theory of this new Church, in a passage already 
quoted from him, when he said that the remission 
of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are both re- 
ceived for the first time in baptism. (See "Chris- 
tian Baptism/' pp. 416, 417.) The theory is, No 
prayer before baptism; no remission of sins before 
baptism ; and no spiritual influence before baptism. 
The order is, Baptism, then prayer; baptism, then 
pardon; baptism, then the Holy Spirit. But ob- 



84 Christians, or Disciples. 

serve the difference between them and Peter: he 
asserted, in the plainest words, that Cornelius and 
his friends received the Holy Ghost before baptism 
(Acts x. 47); Paul prayed, and he received the 
commendation of Heaven before baptism (Acts ix. 
11); Peter preached faith in Christ for the remission 
of sins befor e baptism (Acts x. 43). What shall we 
think of a theory so opposed to the teachings of the 
word of God? 

4. The Baptism of Saul. — "And now why tarriest 
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts xxii. 
16). If we keep in mind the fact that water bap- 
tism is the sign of regeneration, we shall have no 
difficulty in understanding the meaning of Paul 
when he connected baptism with calling on the 
name of the Lord, through which name his sins 
were washed away by faith in Christ— baptism being 
the sign, the Holy Spirit being the power. In 
proof that the baptism of Saul was not necessarily 
the connecting link in the pardon of his sins, we 
find that when Ananias baptized him no such allu- 
sion was made (Acts ix. 17, 18). In the text under 
examination, Paul was relating his experience 
and conversion to the chief captain and to an ex- 
cited people from the stairs of the castle in the city 
of Jerusalem — the violence being so great that 
he had been unmercifully beaten. In the course 
of his address he named baptism, as stated in 
the text, in connection with his calling on the 
name of the Lord in prayer, so as to show to 
these enemies and strangers his religious convic- 



Christians, or Disciples. 85 

tion, experience, and manner of uniting with the 
Church. 

In the four passages of Scripture quoted lies all 
the proof afforded in the New Testament to the 
Christians, or Disciples, to support their theory that 
the remission of past sins is found only in baptism. 
We have seen how easily they are explained to har- 
monize with the remission of sins bj r faith in Christ, 
as soon as we understand the place and design of 
baptism, which we have shown to be the sign of 
regeneration, and the entrance into the Church of 
Christ, by a profession of his name. 

VI. It might be sufficient to add, in refutation of 
the theory held by this Church, that the New Tes- 
tament writers uniformly and repeatedly assert that 
the remission of past sins is by faith in Christ; but 
to make this very evident to the reader, we here 
note some proofs and reasons against the system 
which teaches that remission of sins is only in im- 
mersion. 

1. If the remission of sins were only in baptism, 
Paul would not have made the statements concern- 
ing baptism that he made, as recorded in 1 Cor. i. 
14-17. This great apostle, and preacher, and writer, 
certainly knew, if it were true, that apart from bap- 
tism there was no remission of sins ; but hear what 
he affirms: 1. lie was sent to preach the gospel. 2. 
He was not sent to baptize. 3. He had baptized but 
very few — Crispus and Gaius, and the household of 
Stephanas — and did not know whether he had bap- 
tized any other. 4. He thanked God that he had 



86 Christians, or Disciples. 

not baptized any more of the people to whom he was 
writing. All these statements are irreconcilable 
with the idea that on baptism hangs the sinner's 
life — the pardon of his sins. No preacher of the 
new Church ever thanked God that he baptized 
only a few persons; on the contrary, their boasting 
is that numbers have been immersed by them for 
the remission q{ sins. 

2. The mercy of Gf-od, in offering the forgiveness 
of sins to the world, is limited by this theory to a 
single moment in each man's life. In the very act of 
immersion the sinner is to be pardoned. Neither be- 
fore that moment nor without that act is there any 
promise of forgiveness, according to this Church; 
but in all the Scriptures no truth is more evident 
than the prolonged mercy and forbearance of God 
toward erring men. We cannot think it necessary 
to quote scriptures in proof of the position that the 
Lord is not willing that any should perish; that he 
is very pitiful, and of tender mercy; and that he de- 
sires not the death of a sinner. Every reader knows 
this is the teaching of the Bible. Any theory that 
opposes this teaching is untrue. A theory that 
limits the pardon of past sins to one act and one 
moment of a sinner's life does confine the mercv 
of God to that one act and moment, and is, there- 
fore, in conflict with so many scriptures that it must 
be erroneous. 

3. But this theory is still more objectionable. 
Three things — faith, repentance, and immersion — 
have to meet in the same moment, or the sinner re- 
mains unpardoned. Baptism is to be administered 



Christians, or Disciples. 87 

but once, the Supper often. If a man, then, ac- 
cording to this theory, should be destitute of repent- 
ance or faith when he was immersed, he could never 
afterward be pardoned. When he joined the Church, 
he was not asked a question about his repentance. 
The sermon had probably been a tirade against 
other Churches, and his faith may have been more 
in the supposed evils existing in them than in Christ. 
What an important moment it must be in his life! 
Faith in Christ, repentance toward God, and immer- 
sion for the remission of sins, must all exist and unite 
in that one moment, or the man is lost, if the theory 
be true ; but, thank God, it is an error ! Many of the 
membership of this Church have gone far beyond 
its definitions, and, having a faith of the heart that 
trusts and loves Christ, are born again, while mill- 
ions who never adopted this theory are saved by 
faith in that blood which " speaketh better things 
than the blood of Abel. ,, 

4. If the doctrine that remission of past sins 
takes place only in baptism be true, then our Lord 
must have two laws of pardon in the life of each 
man : one when he is baptized, which is faith, re- 
pentance, and immersion conjoined; and the other 
for the pardon of sins committed after baptism; but 
of what the last law consists we cannot tell. In all 
ages there has never been but one law for the par- 
don of sins. By faith Abel, in the beginning of the 
world, offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ; 
Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him 
for righteousness;" Paul testified " that we are justi- 
fied by faith, and have peace with God through our 



88 Christians, or Disciples. 

Lord Jesus Christ." Now, with Abel before the 
flood, and Abraham after the flood, and Paul after 
the coming of Christ; and, according to all other 
Scripture testimony, there was never but one law for 
the pardon of sins, and that law was faith in Christ. 
We are, then, opposing an error when it is asserted 
that the remission of sins is found in immersion 
alone. 

5. The very mode of the sacrament, in which it is 
claimed that the remission of sins takes place, has 
been in dispute in the Christian world ever since 
immersion was first named. The best scholars and 
the best men have been unable to find immersion 
taught in the Bible ; hence, their practice of bap- 
tism has not been by this mode. Would our Lord 
make a law T for the remission of sins, on which the 
eternal destiny of each man depends, expressed in 
such words that neither the mode prescribed nor the 
design of the ordinance could be understood even by 
the learned portion of mankind, and limit the par- 
don of sins by this law to a single moment in the 
life of each person? And of those who have been 
immersed in the past centuries, how few designed the 
act for the remission of sins! There is not a Bap- 
tist, we suppose, in America or England, or in any 
other country, except the modern sect calling them- 
selves Christians, or Disciples, who supposed for a 
moment that in the act of immersion his sins would 
be remitted. Query : Will sins be remitted in im- 
mersion without intending it? Surely, the theory 
is wrong where so many glaring contradictions and 
difficulties exist. 



Christians, or Disciples. 89 

6. We urge, as a most convincing objection to 
the theory opposed, that millions of men who have 
lived the most holy lives, and dying without im- 
mersion, can have no promise of heaven, if the sys- 
tem held by this Church be true, unless our Lord is 
constantly violating his own law to accommodate 
the perverseness or stupidity of men, that he may 
save them. Many, again, die in such circumstances 
that they could not be immersed. The soldier on 
the field of battle, the sailor on the ocean, the sick 
on the bed of death, and the traveler in the desert, 
where there is neither water nor preacher — possibly 
perpetual snow and ice — may be named as only a few 
instances of this kind. Are all these lost? If the 
theory be true that remission of sins takes place 
only in baptism, they are lost, unless the law of 
pardon is broken in every instance. We are bold 
to affirm that our Saviour never violated his own 
law to save any man, since the world began. His 
law is now, and has ever been, "He that believetli 
not shall be damned," and he will execute it. His 
law is now, and has ever been, "He that believeth 
is not condemned, " and his grace and Spirit will 
give the blessing promised. But the theory named 
makes hopeless and helpless vast multitudes of the 
human family, while Christ's easy term of faith in 
himself makes a way of access to life for every con- 
dition, place, and character. We remember, in our 
early ministry, a druggist whose wife was a member 
of this new Church. He was a wicked sinner, and 
while absent from home, purchasing goods, became 
dangerously ill. At once he turned his attention to 



90 Christians, or Disciples. 

his soul. He could not be immersed. By faith, he 
sought and found Christ as his Saviour, and died 
happy, assured that his sins were pardoned. In the 
absence of the preacher of the Church to which his 
widow belonged, we preached a discourse before he 
was buried. We showed how he was saved bv the 
law of Christ if he had trusted him with all his 
heart before he died, at the same time discouraging 
all sinners from postponing their repentance until 
the last sickness. Never shall we forget the grati- 
tude of that widow for the comforting truths of the 
gospel presented on that occasion. But if her 
preacher had delivered the discourse, he could not 
have spoken a word of hope, except to suggest that 
Christ might save the deceased by the violation of 
his own law. 

7. Lastly, w 7 e design to introduce five witnesses, 
affording conclusive proof that the remission of sins 
is by faith in Christ: 1. John the Baptist — "He that 
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life'' (John iii. 
36). 2. Jesus the Saviour — "For God so loved the 
world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life " (John iii. 16). 3. Peter, the day -of - 
Pentecost preacher — "To him give all the prophets 
witness that through his name whosoever believeth in 
him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts x. 43). 

4. Paul. — "For by grace are ye saved through faith, 
and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not 
of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. ii. 8, 9). 

5. John the Apostle — "He that believeth on the Son 
of God hath the witness in himself" (1 John v. 10). 



Christians, or Disciples. 91 

Here are five witnesses affirming that sins are re- 
mitted by faith in Christ. They are no less person- 
ages than John the Baptist, who represented one 
entire dispensation immediately preceding Christ; 
our Lord, the Redeemer of man ; Peter, who first 
preached the gospel, after Christ's crucifixion, to 
the Jews and to the Gentiles; Paul, the great 
preacher and writer; and John the Apostle, and the 
disciple whom Jesus loved. In all the New Testa- 
ment there is not one sentence stating the remission 
of sin3 to be in connection with faith, repentance, 
and baptism. Returning and reading the verse re- 
lied on by the theorists of the new Church, where 
our Lord addressed Nicodemus, we shall see that 
water alone is named, but faith and repentance are 
not named. In the commission, belief and baptism 
are named, but there is no mention of repentance. 
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, in his famous ad- 
dress to the Jews and strangers, named repentance 
and baptism, but did not name faith in the passage 
on which the new Church so confidently relies. 
Paul, in relating his experience already quoted, 
named baptism, but omitted faith and repentance. 
So we see that the basis on which the new Church 
is built — faith, repentance, and immersion for the re- 
mission of sins — has never once been stated in the 
Scriptures as a trio appearing together. But to re- 
fuse to believe the five authorities, which we have 
shown to prove that the remission of sins is by faith 
in Christ, will require an unusual degree of bold- 
ness, as their statements are unequivocal, and they 
teach the doctrine maintained by us, beyond a doubt. 



92 Christians, or Disciples 



If we are told that the new Church requires faith, 
repentance, and immersion in the remission of sins, 
and that other Churches look for the remission of 
sins in faith alone, and, therefore, they have all that 
others require, and more, we reply that the differ- 
ence is in the understanding of the parties concern- 
ing the nature of faith. The Christians, or Disciples, 
mean by faith that it is simply the belief of testi- 
mony, and in making the good confession, and join- 
ing the Church; it means the belief of the fact that 
Jesus is the Messiah. Nearly all persons who are in 
any Church have had this faith from their earliest 
recollection. The degree or extent of their faith, 
in mind or heart, was not changed in the least by 
uniting with the Church and professing religion. 
But the faith which saves the soul is not only "the 
evidence of things not seen ;" it is also " the substance 
of things hoped for." (Heb. xi. 1.) It not only 
perceives that Christ is the Messiah, but it receives 
him as then saving the believer. It is the faith of 
the heart as well as of the mind. The mourner 
seeking Christ by this faith prays for the blessing of 
pardoned sins in the act of believing ; the believer in 
the new theory does not pray, but expects pardon 
only in baptism. The five witnesses named spoke 
of saving faith as being in the Son of God; not in 
the fact that he was the Messiah, but in the fact that, 
being the Messiah, his promises are realized in a 
present and full salvation. To this the heart re- 
sponds with all its power of trust and love; for it 
is "with the heart that man believeth unto righteous- 
ness." Rom. x. 10. The theory of the new Church, 



Christians, or Disciples. 93 

making immersion essential to pardon, with faith 
and repentance, gives but this one moment of life, 
when baptism is administered, -to receive forgive- 
ness; but the Scriptures, teaching that pardon is by 
faith in Christ, allows the whole period of life as a 
time for repentance and return to God. 

Our work is done. The reader must judge 
whether the peculiar views and doctrines of the 
Church called the Christians, or Disciples, are true 
or erroneous. In the fear of God, we believe they 
are errors of a nature so pernicious that the soul is 
imperiled by embracing them; hence we oppose 
them, hating the false doctrines set forth, but loving 
and praying for ail who hold these views. 

And now, dear reader, fellow-traveler to eternity, 
as we part let me inquire, Are you a child of God 
by faith in Christ Jesus? Is your whole life hid 
with Christ in God ? Are you pardoned ? and have 
you become a new creature in the Lord ? Consider 
how soon we shall pass into the eternal state. Then 
we shall be judged by all the deeds done in the body. 
The passing hours to-day will tell on our happiness 
or misery during the unnumbered years of eternity. 
Christ is offered to you to-day, without money and 
without price. He tasted death for every man, and 
asks you to trust him that you may live. Why will 
ye die ? is the pealing note of interrogation from 
heaven, which has sounded in the ears of men for 
many centuries. Never stop short of Christ in seek- 
ing the salvation of your soul. Trust neither prayer, 
nor baptism, nor alms, nor good works of any kind, 



94 Christians, or Disciples. 

but in Jesus alone seek to find the pearl of great 
price. All obedience will be easy and plain if you 
love the Lord. Let Christ be unto you wisdom, 
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- 
tion. Think of your impure heart; think of his 
spotless purity; then goto him, saying, 

" In my hand no price I bring; 
Simply to thy Cross I cling!" 

May your mind and heart receive and own the 
truth in the love of it; may you find that "to live 
is Christ, and to die is gain;" and may you enjoy, 
after death, "the rest that remaineth to the people 
of God." 



THE END, 



CHRISTIANS, OR DISCIPLES. 



BY 

THE REV. S. NOLAND, 

Of the Kentucky Conference. 



With ax Introduction by the Rev. A. H. Redford, D.D. 



Nashville, Tenn. : 

PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH, SOUTH. 

1875. 



7 y 



AhhXkk* 1 



Nwvwwr- 






^w^^^ 



\*nr\N 



A A ^ A A AAA A A 



,M^Ma^ 



rViAAMAP' 



*.r\f\*ry ./** 






AA*ArV\A 



SHf^^ 



4 4 44^M^^^^^ 



ifHfiffff^N^ 



^.^omvm^^tf 



******* ^ ^ ,«, , 



... . .kV^^av 



ysOTjJTTTlLO 



"twmmm* 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procej 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATK 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 












Aa_aa^ a * 



aAAA'^AA 






W^w^--" 



- V«*A^M 



f^toSfi*}* 



^**f\^^^A 






— ^*. A ^^r ^ 



rw^P^ 






MRPtyfi 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




